1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7809 OF 2009. Savita D/o Laxman Bhole ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Shelke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Ms.Surekha Mahajan, advocate for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 15.04.2010. PER COURT 1. Mr.Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the petition by incorporating a prayer for directing the Respondents to decide the proposal submitted by the Respondent-Management seeking permission to close down additional division of semi English 2 class of 4th Division of VIII standard which is on permanent no grant basis. 2. Ms.Mahajan, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 pointed out to us that the management had submitted a proposal seeking permission for closure of the 4th Division of the VIII standard. The aforesaid proposal is dated 14.10.2009 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said proposal is pending consideration with the Respondents authorities and no orders have been passed. In fact, Mr.Kadam, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents authorities also stated that said proposal is pending. 3. In the meanwhile, it appears that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated and the petitioner has filed an appeal which is pending consideration before the School Tribunal. Obviously, a question as to whether the permission to the management for closure of the 4th Division of the VIII standard has been correctly granted or not can not be a subject 3 matter of challenge before the School Tribunal. 4. In that light of the matter, therefore, since the proposal submitted by the management is pending, we allow this petition as per the amended prayer clause and direct the Respondents authorities to decide the proposal, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from today and convey the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. This petition is, therefore, partly allowed in respect of the aforesaid amended prayer clause. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. In respect of prayer clause (B) to the petition, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file a petition afresh after the order in respect of the decision on the proposal is passed by the Respondents authorities. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp780909 4