1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3945 OF 2010 Ramakant Ganpatrao Patil, Age 43 years, Occu.Service, Secretary, Nehru Yova Mandal Kaldeo Nimbala, Taluka Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on G.P., High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department 2. The Assistant Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ..RESPONDENTS (3) The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad (Primary), District Osmanabad .. Deleted Mr.A.R.Borulkar,, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Respondent No.3 deleted as per Court’s leave dated 30.4.2010 WRIT PETITION NO.3946 OF 2010 Ramakant Ganpatrao Patil, Age 43 years, Occu.Service, Secretary, Nehru Yova Mandal Kaldeo Nimbala, Taluka Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad .. PETITIONER 2 VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on G.P., High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department 2. The Assistant Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ..RESPONDENTS (3) The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad (Primary), District Osmanabad .. Deleted Mr.A.R.Borulkar,, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Respondent No.3 deleted as per Court’s leave dated 30.4.2010 WRIT PETITION NO.3947 OF 2010 Ramakant Ganpatrao Patil, Age 43 years, Occu.Service, Secretary, Nehru Yova Mandal Kaldeo Nimbala, Taluka Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on G.P., High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department 3 2. The Assistant Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ..RESPONDENTS (3) The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad (Primary), District Osmanabad .. Deleted Mr.A.R.Borulkar,, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Respondent No.3 deleted as per Court’s leave dated 30.4.2010 WRIT PETITION NO.3990 OF 2010 Ramakant Ganpatrao Patil, Age 43 years, Occu.Service, Secretary, Nehru Yova Mandal Kaldeo Nimbala, Taluka Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on G.P., High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department 2. The Assistant Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 3. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad (Secondary), ..RESPONDENTS Mr.A.R.Borulkar,, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 30th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioners states on instructions that the petitioners may be permitted to delete respondent No.3 in Writ Petition Nos.3945 of 2010, 3946 of 2010 and 3947 of 2010 as no reliefs claimed against respondent No.3. Deletion permitted at the risk of the petitioners. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The policy decision of the Government not to grant permission for opening of the Marathi medium primary/secondary schools was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.345 of 2010 by its judgment dated 8.4.2010, allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the policy decision and directed the Government to decide the proposals afresh, in accordance with law by the end of May 2010. 5 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states on instructions that in the light of the directives issued by the Court in Writ Petition No.345 of 2010, Asha sevabhavi Sanstha Salapuri Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, the Government would decide the proposal of the petitioners afresh, in accordance with law and by end of May 2010 and communicate the decision to the petitioners. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 4. Rule made absolute on above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3945.10wp)