WP No. 8307/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8307 OF 2009 1. Arjun s/o. Ramrao Rathod, 2. Sanju s/o. Shrichand Rathod, Both R/o. Aurangabad. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. 2. The Dy. Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. Shri. Renuka Magasvargiya Shikshan Sanstha, Phule Colony, Aurangbad Through it's Secretary. ....Respondents. Mrs. Asha Rasal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.C. Thombre, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. Reserved on : 28th September, 2011. Pronounced on : 4th October, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a relief of direction to the State Government to sanction a post of Clerk and post of Peon on the establishment of the respondent No. WP No. 8307/09 2 3/Institution where petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are working as Clerk and Peon, respectively. Both the sides are heard. 2. It is the case of petitioners that they have been working as a Clerk and Peon, respectively, in respondent No. 3/Institution since 1.7.2001. It is contended that as per the policy of the State Government as published in Government Resolution dated 1.6.2006 the respondent No. 3 can get the post of Clerk and post of Peon in view of the strength of its students. It is contended that in view of this policy a proposal was moved by respondent No. 3 through Education Officer of Zilla Parishad. It is contended that this proposal was sent to Deputy Director of Education along with similar proposals made by ten other primary schools. It is contended that the school of respondent No. 3 has been getting 100% grant since the year 2005-06 and so such posts can be sanctioned with grants. It is contended that the Deputy Director of Education has forwarded the proposal to the Government, but the Government has not taken any decision. It is contended that in the year 2009 many representations were made by the petitioners, but no response is given to the representations by the Government. 3. The State Government has filed affidavit in reply. The State Government has admitted that it has received the proposal of respondent No. 3 forwarded through Deputy Director of Education WP No. 8307/09 3 (in February 2010). It is the case of the State Government that a policy decision is taken by it and the recruitment of non teaching staff is banned for some time and so the proposal of respondent No. 3 is not yet considered. 4. Copies of relevant Government Resolutions are produced on record. Copy of Government Resolution dated 5.6.2010 shows that the recruitment of such staff was banned for the period one year from the date of Government Resolution and by subsequent Government Resolution dated 30.6.2011, this period came to be extended by one more year. 5. In the petition itself, it is mentioned that ten similar proposals were forwarded by Education Officer to the State Government. Many other proposals must have been pending with the State Government. As the policy decision is taken by the State Government, this Court holds that it is not possible to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in such policy. So the petition stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/