1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6162 OF 2010 Komal d/o Narsingh Chauhan, Age 20 years, Occu.Education, R/o Near Police Station, Maratha Galli, Kundalwadi, Taluka Biloli, District Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Maharashtra State Council of Examination, 17, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Pune 400 001 ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.A.R.Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 5th August 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Mr.S.S.Thombre, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that leave may be granted to the petitioner for amending the petition for incorporating the prayer clause directing the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner on 22.6.2010. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioiner from V.J.(A) category. The petitioner also prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents – authorities to decide the application/representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 22.6.2010. 4. It is stated before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the relief in terms of the amended prayer clause is sought for by the petitioner and the petitioner does not press for the relief at prayer clause (B) to the petition but prays for liberty to file a petition praying for the aforesaid relief in the event the application of the petitioner is decided adverse to the petitioner. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed insofar as prayer clause (B) is concerned with the liberty as prayed for. 5. In the light of the limited relief, which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, according to us, it is not necessary to advert in detail to the facts of the present case. Suffice it to state that since the application of the petitioner is pending, we direct 3 the respondents to decide the said application, in accordance with law, within period of three weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/6162.2010wp)