1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 7723 OF 2008 Ashok s/o. Sangram Kendre, age 36 years, occu. service, R/o. Sheldara, taluka Ahmedpur, district Latur, presently r/o. C/o. Chandrakant Kappikire, Oppo. Sangram School, Hanuman Road, Udgir. - - - - Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Director, Maharashtra State Council for Educational Research & Training (Postal D. Ed. Course), 708, Sadashiv Peth, Kumthekar Marg, Pune 411 030. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur. 4. The Education Officer [Primary], Zilla Parishad, Latur. 5. The Principal, The District Institute of Education & Training, Murud, taluka and District Latur. 6. Phiroj Gandhi Education Society, C/o. Sanjay Gandhi Primary School, Samata Nagar, Udgir, dist. Latur through its Secretary. 2 7. The Head Master, Sanjay Gandhi Primary School, Samata Nagar, Udgir, District Latur. - - - - Respondents Shri P. G. Gunale, Advoate for the petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Respondent No.6 absent though served. None present for respondent No.4. Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent No.7. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 27th July 2009 PER COURT : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, grievance raised by the petitioner is that Respondent No.7 be directed to allow the petitioner to complete his Internship as per the letter dated 31-10-2008 issued by Respondent No.5 to Respondent No.7. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in Respondent No.7 School as Assistant Teacher on 19-6-1990. It is also his case that he worked in the said school for the year between 1992 and 1995. It is the contention of the petitioner that since he was eligible for admission to Postal D. Ed. and since he 3 was not granted admission, he preferred writ petition being Writ Petition No. 533 of 1996 before this Court seeking a direction to admit the petitioner for postal D. Ed. course. Not successful in that round, another writ petition came to be filed being Writ Petition No. 1856 of 2003. This Court vide Order dated 10-10-2003 allowed the said petition with direction to admit the petitioner to postal D. Ed. course. The petitioner successfully completed postal D. Ed. course. However, since Respondent No.7 did not permit the petitioner to complete the Internship, he has not been granted D. Ed. Passing Certificate. 4. The claim of the petitioner is resisted by Respondent No.7 on the ground that petitioner was not in service of Respondent No.7 school from 1996. It is the contention of the Respondent No.7 that in the event petitioner is permitted to complete Internship in the Respondent No.7 school, it will be deemed that he is in employment of Respondent No.7 and would claim for reinstatement in service though he has not legally entitled to. 5. The claim in the petition is restricted to direction to the Respondent No.7 to permit the petitioner to complete Internship 4 Course. 6. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has been admitted to the postal D. Ed. course in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1856 of 2003. Pursuant to the admission given in accordance with the directions issued by this Court, petitioner has in fact now completed D. Ed. course. Only on account of non completion of Internship course of six months with Respondent No.7 School, he is not in a position to get the D. Ed. certificate. 7. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 5 have stated in their reply that since the petitioner was admitted to postal D. Ed. course as an in service candidate of the Respondent No.7 School, the Respondent No.7 is under obligation to allow the petitioner to complete Internship in pursuance to the guidelines issued by the Government. In that view of the matter, we find that the limited relief claimed by the petitioner in the present petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Respondent No.7 is, therefore, directed to permit the petitioner to complete his Internship course as directed by 5 Respondent No.5 vide letter dated 31-10-2008. However, it is made clear that since the aforesaid direction is issued inasmuch as the present petitioner has prosecuted the Course in accordance with the admission given to him as per the directions dated 10-10-2003 of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1856 of 2003. We have considered only the limited aspect of permitting the petitioner to complete his Internship with the Respondent No.7. 9. We further make it clear that we have not considered any rival claims between the petitioner and the Respondent No.7 as to whether the petitioner was or was not in service from 1996 and in case if any dispute arises with respect to that matter, the parties would be at liberty to get it settled through appropriate forum. Rule is partly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/772308