{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1036 OF 1994 Anand Laxmanrao Jadhav Age-Major, Occ-Service R/o Loni, Tq-Degloor, Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded 3. Sant Gadgebaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Degloor, Through its Secretary Sawaksha Dinshawji Jilla R/o Aahura Manzil, Degloor, Dist-Nanded 4. Digambarrao Vithalrao Deshmukh Deleted R/o 15, Shahaji Nagar, Degloor 5. Rajaram Narhari Gajbhare Age-Major, Occ-I/c Head Master Sadhana High School, Degloor 6. Baliram Ghanshyam Ingale Age-Major, Occ-Service R/o Police Colony, Degloor Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent State Ms.Sabahat Kazi h/f Mr.C.R.Deshpande for respondent No.6 ....... {2} [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 31st July 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.02.1994 by which approval came to be granted to the appointment of respondent No. 6, as a Physical Instructor. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner, who is having qualifications as B.A.B.P.Ed. came to be appointed on 01.09.1989 as an Assistant Teacher. No post of Physical Instructor was available in the institute where the petitioner was serving. In March 1993, a post of Physical Instructor was created. Thereafter, respondent No.6 came to be appointed on 05.06.1993. According to the petitioner, prior to the appointment of respondent No.6, as a Physical Instructor, the petitioner had staked his claim with the management, but the management ignored the claim of the petitioner and appointed respondent No.6. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner submitted a grievance before the Education Officer, by communication dated 23.07.1993. The petitioner, therefore, by this petition, challenges approval granted to the appointment of respondent No.6. {3} 3. Mrs.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner had a right to be considered first before appointing respondent No.6, as a Physical Instructor since the petitioner was holding the requisite qualifications of B.A. B.P.Ed. Mrs.Kazi, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has urged before us that the petitioner had not submitted any application staking his claim prior to the appointment of respondent No.6. The petitioner has not placed on record any document by which the petitioner had informed the management that he was interested in being appointed as a Physical Instructor. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out to us any provision either in the Statute or in the rules framed thereunder that the petitioner would get a right to be considered before the management could appoint respondent No.6. In the light of that matter, therefore, according to us, no case for interference is made out. The approval granted to the appointment of respondent No.6 has been continuing since then and we see no ground, whatsoever, for interfering in this petition. 4. This petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1036-94