1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 529 OF 2009 Madhyamik Shikshan Vidya Mandal, Shirsoli, Tq. And Dist. Jalgaon through its President, Shankar Dashrath Bari. .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. B.S. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 26th August, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 . The petitioner has filed the present petition for a direction to the respondents to direct release of grants to the “Khajgi Prathamic Shala,” situated at Shirsoli, Taluka and District Jalgaon. 2] From the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, it appears that grants were not released since the petitioner school had not fulfilled the backlog of backward class candidates. It is submitted that after the receipt of the evaluation report, from the District Evaluation Committee, the necessary steps would be taken by the Government in the matter for releasing grants in favour of the petitioner. 3] From the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4, it has been stated that now the school has fulfilled the backlog of the backward class teachers by appointing teachers from the reserved category of which backlog was there. However, it is stated in the reply that when the Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti visited the petitioner school and demanded the proposal from the petitioner in the prescribed form, the petitioner institution denied giving fresh evaluation on the ground that the evaluation has already been done. 4] It is not in dispute that evaluation of the said school has been done on 5 occasions and said reports are already available with the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is further to be noted that the only ground on which the petitioner was found not eligible for release of grants is that the backlog was not fulfilled. It is not in dispute that now the backlog is fulfilled. 3 5] In that view of the matter, we direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to send a proposal of the petitioner for making available grants to the petitioner on the basis of the evaluation reports which are already available with the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to the respondent No.2 within a period of one month from today. On receipt of the proposal, the respondent NO.2, shall pass necessary orders within a period of two months therefrom. 6] Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-