1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3627 OF 2009 Shri Pratap s/o Pandurangrao Kochure, Age 57 years, Occupation Service, R/o 94, Nandanwan Colony, Cantonment, Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Director of Education, Office of Director of Higher & Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Pune 411 001 3. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, University Campus, Aurangabad Through its Registrar ..Respondents Shri B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri P.V.Tapse Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3 absent CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 20th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. We have heard Shri B.L.Sagar Killarikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. None appears on behalf of respondent No.3 when this petition is called out. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays to declare the petitioner in the Cadre of Tutor/Tutor-cum-Instructor and to give other consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of appointment. 4. We need not dilate much on the factual aspects of the case as it would suffice to state that a proposal came to be submitted by the Vice Chancellor to the Director of Higher Education, M.S.Pune dated 3-6/1/2009. In the said proposal, it was urged by the Director of Education to consider the case of the petitioner as Tutor/Tutor-cum-Instructor. It appears that the Director of Education favourably recommended the case of the petitioner for consideration to the respondent No.1 by the communication dated 7.1.2009. Thereafter, the Government made certain quaries to the respondent University which came to be answered by the respondent University by its communication dated 17.3.2009. Since then, it is urged before us that the proposal of the petitioner for his appointment as Tutor/Tutor-cum-Instructor is pending consideration with the Government. Since the proposal 3 is pending since January 2009, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to decide the said proposal, in accordance with law expeditiously. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute by directing respondent No.1 – Government to decide the proposal of the petitioner as forwarded by the Director of Education, Pune dated 7.1.2009, within two months from today and to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 6. Copy of this Judgment duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3627.2009wp) 4