1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7601 OF 2009 1. Dilip s/o Rupsing Chavan, Age 41 years, Occu.Service, Presently working as Assistant Teacher, Nilkantheshwar High School, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon 2. Vijay s/o Uttam Patil, Age 37 years, Occu.Service Presently working as Assistant Teacher, Nilkantheshwar High School, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon 3. Nandkishor s/o Baliram Chaudhary, Age 34 years, Occu.Service, Presently working as Assistant Teacher, Nilkantheshwar High School, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon 4. Pravin s/o Gangadhar Patil, Age 35 years, Occu.Service, Presently working as Assistant Teacher, Nilkantheshwar High School, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Director of Education (Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. (5) Nilkantheshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon through its President .. RESPONDENTS 2 Shri S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioners Shri S.K.Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 Respondent No.5 deleted as per leave of the Court dated 26.3.2010 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 26th March 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. At the outset, Shri Barlinge, learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks to delete respondent No.5 as according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners no relief is sought against respondent No.5. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the proposal had been forwarded by respondent No. 5. Accordingly, leave to delete respondent No.5 is granted at the risk of the petitioners. 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 petitioners came to be appointed on 15.11.2000 as Shikshan Sevaks. Their appointment was for a period of three years as Shikshan Sevak which came to an end on 14.11.2003. The petitioners thereafter came to be appointed on 15.11.2003 as Assistant Teachers. The proposal seeking approval to their 3 appointments came to be submitted on 27.11.2003 and the said proposal is stated before us to be pending. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us the interest of justice would be sub served by directing the respondents to decide the pending proposal, in accordance with law. The petitioners, therefore, in our opinion would not be entitled for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to grant approval to the appointments of the petitioners. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to decide the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioners, if pending, in accordance with law, within period of eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/7601.09wp)