1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3356 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3356 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3356 OF 2008 Bhaskar Shamrao Bhosale. . .. Petitioner. vs. D.L. Patil Shikshan Prasarak Madal & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. G.M. Savagave for Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for Respondents. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATE: 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATE: 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not find it necessary to serve notice to the other respondents in the facts of the present case having taken into consideration the limited relief sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, we are disposing of this petition on the very first day it has been placed before us for admission. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court impugning his termination. The petitioner was 2 appointed by the respondent no. 1 as the Superintendent of Primary School, Turchi vide appointment letter dated 21.5.1999 and it is the case of the petitioner that he was made permanent with effect from 14.6.1999 which was subsequently modified to 9.6.2003 and his appointment was done with effect from 9.6.2003. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner made a representation which has probably resulted in oral termination of the petitioner from service without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner had a remedy, he has preferred an appeal before the Divisional Social Officer, Pune challenging the oral termination order dated 1.1.2006 which has been registered on the file of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune as appeal bearing No. 6 of 2006, it is submitted that the appeal has not been taken up for hearing and is kept pending without any justification due to which the petitioner is left without employment and, therefore, he has approached this court invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction for writ of mandamus seeking a direction to respondent no. 4 to decide the petitioner’s appeal bearing no. 6 of 2006 within a stipulated period in accordance with law. 4. The learned AGP has no objection if the court passes appropriate orders in the matter. We therefore, 3 dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent no. 4 to decide the appeal of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner to communicate the order to respondent no. 4. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.)