Wp 2361.11 1 IN THE HICH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2361/2011 Shrishail B.Patil Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.Vishwasrao S.Deokar for petitioner Ms.S.S.Bhende,AGP for Res.State Mr.Nitin Jamdar for Res.3 CORAM- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE 15th April,2011 P.C. . Heard counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. AGP waives service for the respondent State ,advocate Mr.Jamdar waives service for the respondent no.3 .As short question is involved the petition is taken up for final disposal by consent . 3 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the decision conveyed to the Head Master of the respondent-school by the Administration , Mahanagarpalika Primary Education School Board, Sholapur, dated 17/1/2011 whereby the Head Master of the respondent- Wp 2361.11 2 school was informed that the approval cannot be granted to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of the trained graduate teacher’s scale as he does not possess necessary qualification of D.Ed.. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is B.A.B.Ed. . The identical question came up for consideration in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.Tukaram Trimbak Choudhary and this Court negatived the stand of the department and issued direction to grant approval to the appointment of the concerned petitioner. That decision was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court which however, came to be rejected. The Supreme Court decision is reported in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases,201 . The legal position stated in the said decision applies to the case of the petitioner on all fours. Learned AGP appearing for the department in all fairness , on instructions of J.S.Randive , Under Secretary of School Education and Sports Department who is present in the Court, accepts this position. As a result the impugned decision of the department conveyed to the Head Master by communication dated 17/1/2011 is quashed and set aside and instead the respondents are directed to consider the claim of Wp 2361.11 3 the petitioner keeping in mind the legal position and the observations of the Supreme Court in Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari’s case. That be done as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than 8 weeks from today. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR ,J.)