1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3629 OF 2009 Jalindar s/o Gulab Walke, Age 43 yrs., Occu.Service, R/o Vilad, Taluka and District Ahmednagar .. Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Laxminarayan Pratishthan, The Rahuri Sah.Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivaji Nagar, Tal. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar 2. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune 4. The State of Maharashtra, through its Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai .. Respondents Shri A.M.Gholap, Advocate holding for Shri D.R.Korde Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents 2 to 4 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.3607 OF 2009 Balasaheb s/o Paraji Pawar, Age 42 yrs., Occu.Service, R/o Pathare, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar .. Petitioner 2 Versus 1. Shri Laxminarayan Pratishthan, The Rahuri Sah.Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivaji Nagar, Tal. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar 2. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune 4. The State of Maharashtra, through its Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai .. Respondents Shri A.M.Gholap, Advocate holding for Shri D.R.Korde Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents 2 to 4 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.3614 OF 2009 Shantilal s/o Rangnath Jadhav, Age 42 yrs., Occu.Service, R/o Tilapur at Post Manjri, Taluka Rahuri, Dist.Ahmednagar .. Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Laxminarayan Pratishthan, The Rahuri Sah.Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivaji Nagar, Tal. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar 2. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar 3 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune 4. The State of Maharashtra, through its Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai .. Respondents Shri A.M.Gholap, Advocate holding for Shri D.R.Korde Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents 2 to 4 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.3628 OF 2009 Lahanu s/o Haribhau Zine, Age 45 yrs., Occu.Service, R/o Vambori, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar .. Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Laxminarayan Pratishthan, The Rahuri Sah.Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivaji Nagar, Tal. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar 2. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune 4. The State of Maharashtra, through its Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai .. Respondents Shri A.M.Gholap, Advocate holding for Shri D.R.Korde Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.G.Patil, AGP for respondents 2 to 4 4 CORAM: P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE: 18th JUNE, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER P.V.HARDAS, J.] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri A.M.Gholap, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Govt.Pleader who appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. In the light of the order which we propose to pass, according to us, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.1 – Management. 3. The grievance made by the petitioners in these petitions is the appeal/representation/application pending consideration before the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune. In the said proceedings pending before the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune, i.e the appeal/representation/application, the Management is a respondent. We are informed by Shri Gholap, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the said proceedings are pending consideration from the year 2007 and the proceedings have not been decided so far. In the light of that, therefore, we allow these petitions to the limited extent of 5 directing the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune to decide the pending proceedings filed by the petitioners i.e appeal/representation/application, in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the said proceedings. This be done within three months from today. The Deputy Director of Education to communicate the order thereon to the parties. 4. Rule is thus made absolute to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs. [ R.K.DESHPANDE ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3629.09grwp) 6