1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4291 OF 2009 Pramod S/o.Laxmanrao Gaikwad, Age-31 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Mahatma Phule Nagar, Dhanora Road, Beed, District Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Maharashtra State Council for Examination, Pune 3. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed. 4. The Secretary, Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha Mitranagar, Palwan, Dhanora Road, Beed, District Beed. 5. The Head Master, Sharadchandra Vidya Mandir, Mitranagar, Palwan Dhanora Road, Beed, District : Beed RESPONDENTS 2 Mr.A.D.Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.A.R.Nikam, learned counsel for respondent no.2 Mr.U.B.Bondar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 Mr.N.D.Sonawane, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 08/10/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per, P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. At the outset, Shri.A.D.Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner does not press for the reliefs prayed for at prayer clause B & C to the petition. It is stated before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that directions be issued to the respondents for considering the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval as an untrained teacher as the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of D.Ed. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner does not hold the requisite qualification of D.Ed, which is essential for grant of approval as a trained teacher. Shri.N.D.Sonwane, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5 states that the Management would submit a proposal seeking approval from respondent no.3 i.e. Education Officer, 3 (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed to the appointment of the petitioner as an untrained teacher. Shri.Sonwane, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5 further states that respondents no.4 and 5 would be submitting the said proposal within the period of 2 weeks from today. Since the Management intends to submit a proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval as an untrained teacher, according to us, it would be appropriate if the respondents decide the proposal in accordance with Law. 4. We accordingly allow this petition and accept the statement of learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5 that the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an untrained teacher would be submitted within 2 weeks from today. We accordingly direct respondent no.3 to decide the said proposal strictly in accordance with Law, within 8 weeks from the date of submission of the proposal and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. The impugned order passed by this Court on 09/07/2009 that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner, to continue till the proposal of the petitioner is decided in accordance with Law by respondent no.3. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT 2009/wp4291-09