1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5716 OF 2009 Mukta D/o Subhash Lande, R/o-House No.54, Lande Galli, Nalegaon, Ahmednagar, District-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Ahmednagar, Laltaki Road, Ahmednagar Through it's Secretary, 3) The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune, 4) Sandeep s/o Chandrakant Jamdade, R/o C/o- New Arts, Commerce & Science College, Ahmednagar, District-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.S.S. Jadhavar Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 3. Mr.A.D. Shinde Advocate h/f. Mr. V.D. Hon Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.N.D. Sonavane Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel Shri Jadhavar appearing for the Petitioner. According to the counsel, the Petitioner is working as part time teacher since 1998 with Respondent No.2. Reliance is placed on the circular issued by the Government, dated 9th November, 2004. Under the said circular, the counsel submits that, benefits should have been given to the Petitioner by appointing her as full time teacher in the vacant post. 2. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the academic year 2006-2007 vacancy arose but as the Petitioner was promised, the Petitioner did not raise any objection as is being raised now. The counsel further submits that the Petitioner even participated in the selection process held in the year 2006-2007 but she was not selected in the vacant post. The counsel further submits that in the year 2008-2009 3 fresh selection process took place under fresh vacancy and the Petitioner again participated in the same, through which Respondent No.4 was appointed. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner ought to have been appointed and confirmed as full time teacher in accordance with the Government policy. 3. It is thus clear that the Petitioner participated in the selection process undertaken in the year 2008-2009, through which Respondent no.4 was appointed. In the light of these developments, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction as the Petitioner participated in the selection process and after having failed, has raised objections. The Petitioner could have raised this very objection in the year 2006 itself or thereafter, but for the reasons best known to the Petitioner, the same was not done. 4. The Petitioner placed reliance on the Government circular referred to above. We do not now, want to unsettle the position wherein the management appointed 4 Respondent No.4 and he is working. In case, in future the vacancy arises, the Petitioner is entitled to raise her grievance, if any, for appointment on regular basis. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the available work-load the management be directed to accord full time teacher status to the Petitioner. We observe that in case work-load available to the Petitioner is sufficient for conferring regular full time teacher status on the Petitioner, then the Petitioner is entitled to approach the Deputy Director of Education, who shall look into the matter, if a representation is filed by the Petitioner, and thereafter take appropriate decision, at the earliest, after hearing the Petitioner and the management. 6. With these observations and directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/NOV09/wp5716.09