1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5072 OF 2010 Shaikh Salim Shafi, Age 41 years, Occu.Service, R/o Galli No.6, Madhavpura, Near Chaini Road, Dhule .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 14 th June 2010 PER COURT 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 8.3.2009 passed by the second respondent granting approval to the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak and not as an Assistant Teacher. 2. We need not advert to the other facts as it would suffice to state that the petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No.176 of 2005 before the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule. 2 The trial Court upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties by its judgment and decree dated 27.1.2009 decreed the suit filed by the present petitioner and in terms held that the Management should forward the proposal of the petitioner herein for grant of approval as an Assistant Teacher and the present respondent, who has passed the impugned order, to grant approval to the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. Further ancillary reliefs also came to be granted to the petitioner. It appears that the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule was not challenged in an appeal on behalf of the respondents. The aforesaid decree has become final insofar as the parties to the civil suit are concerned. 3. Mr.Sapkal, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that despite the judgment and decree, the respondent No.2 i.e. the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik has granted approval to the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak. Mr.Sapkal further states that the said order is obviously an order which is erroneous and, therefore, despite the fact that the petitioner is armed with a decree in his favour, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. Since no question is raised before us insofar as the maintainability of the suit filed by the petitioner is concerned, we refrain from making any observations in respect of the 3 maintainability of the said suit. Suffice it to say that the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the decree reads that the respondent – Deputy Director of Education should grant an approval to the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. Further to the grant of approval, certain other ancillary benefits were held entitled to be claimed by the petitioner. Since the decree is being capable of executed, any erroneous order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, according to us, would not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking the execution of the decree. Since the petitioner has an alternate remedy available in law as the petitioner had elected to file Regular Civil Suit, we dismiss the petition on that score. Writ Petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/5072.10wp)