1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.878 OF 2010. Jalgaon Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj Maryadit, Jalgaon, through its President Bhagwantrao S/o Jagatrao Deshmukh, Age 75 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Varangaon, Tq.Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Joint Director, Higher and Technical Education, Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. The North Maharashtra University Bambhori, Jalgaon District Jalgaon, through its Registrar. 4. Dagaji S/o Damodar Bacchav, Age 60 years, Occ.Retired, R/o 7, Ajay Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents. ... 2 Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.A.B.Girase, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 25.03.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to fix the pay-scales of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the three (3) Colleges for getting the benefits of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 - University to fix the schedule for inspecting the record of the three Colleges run by the 3 petitioner. 3. On notice being issued to the Respondents, the Respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in-reply in para 10 it is stated thus : "The answering university is ready to conduct the inspection, only expected that, the concerned college came with all required information along with necessary information". Mr.Girase, learned counsel for the Respondent University states that the petitioner should give with the proposal record of all its employees. Mr.Hon, learned advocate agrees for this. We, therefore, allow this petition in terms of the statement in the affidavit at para 10 and reproduced above as well as the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proposal of all the employees would be submitted and the entire record available with the petitioner would be produced on the dates fixed by the Respondent 4 University for inspection. Mr.Girase, states that the date of inspection would be communicated by the Respondent No.3 to the petitioner. Mr.Kadam, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent NO.2 states that after the University carries out inspection, the Respondent No.2 would take further steps in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp87810