1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5085 OF 2010 (Harihar Marotrao Kelode vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. AUGUST 17, 2011. Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional GP for respondents No. 1 to 3, Shri Deopujari, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Shri Ghate, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. After orders of this Court dated 10.08.2010 in Writ Petition No. 3612 of 2009, the Deputy Director of Education has given necessary opportunity of hearing to the parties and passed orders holding that Respondent No. 5 was not an employee of Western Coal Fields Limited (WCL) but was offered training and also stipend. He did not complete that training or join the employment. According to Shri Parchure, Respondent No. 5 has not obtained any leave or permission in writing and case of management is that he was permitted to join that training orally. It is not necessary for us to look into all those 2 aspects as even if it is presumed that Respondent No. 5 had remained away from duty without previous permission or without express leave, still later on he reported back for duty and management in its discretion has accepted that joining. The period of absence was also regularized by passing a resolution and there is no challenge to that resolution in present writ petition. The contention that Respondent No. 5 was offered employment with WCL is looked into by Respondent No. 3 and has been appreciated in the light of arguments advanced and documents produced. The other grievance is that the petitioner is not the junior-most. The learned Additional GP has pointed out that not only the petitioner but other persons who appear after him in seniority list as published on 01.07.2009 are also declared surplus and we, therefore, do not find any reason warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, Shri Parchure, learned counsel states that the position as prevailing today, without any intervention of the Court for last 10 months, should be continued for a reasonable time so as to enable the petitioner to exhausts other remedy. The respective counsel for the respondents are opposing the prayer. However, considering the nature of controversy, we permit the position prevailing as on 3 today to continue for a period of six weeks more from today and the same shall cease to operate automatically thereafter without reference to Court. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.