1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4692 OF 2009 Gulab S/o.Arjun Patil, Age-48 years, Occu-Agriculturist and Chairman, Watveshwar Madhyamic Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, R/o.Wadgaon Lambe, Tq.Chalisgaon, Dist : Jalgaon PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through, the Secretary, Secondary Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division Nashik. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 4. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Chalisgaon, Dist : Jalgaon (Name of respondent no.4 is deleted as per order dated 21/07/2009.) RESPONDENTS Mr.P.B.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, learned AGP for respondents. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/07/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent no.4. Leave granted at the risk of petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. Heard Shri.P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.K.B.Chaudhary, learned AGP who accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1,2 and 3. 3. Pursuant to the publication of an advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications for revival in the newspaper which has been closed, the petitioner had submitted a proposal for revival of standard 8th classes. The cut off date or the last date which was prescribed, came to be extended thereafter by a publication of subsequent notification. Apparently, it appears to us that the petitioner has submitted the proposal before the last date specified in the said communications. 4. According to the petitioner, unfortunately though he had submitted the proposal to respondent no.3 within time, the same was not forwarded to respondent no.2 for consideration. In the light of that, therefore we are inclined to allow this petition. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and direct respondent no.3 to forward the proposal of the petitioner, if the same is complete in all 3 respects and if the proposal has been submitted by the petitioner within the time specified. Respondent no.3 shall forward the proposal, if it is complete, within 2 weeks from today to respondent no.2 for consideration of the said proposal in accordance with Law. We expect respondent no.2, on receipt of proposal of the petitioner from respondent no.3 to expeditiously decide the said proposal in accordance with Law. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. Copy of this order duly authenticated by Shirastedar of this Court be provided to either counsel on request. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp4692-09