-1- mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 2388 of 2008 Mrs.Ujjwala Dattu Kothule ..Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Shri S.K.Shinde i/b Shri Sagar Kasar for petitioner Shri C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 Smt.Manisha Shekhar i/b J.Shekhar and Co. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.N.PATEL & J.N.PATEL & J.N.PATEL & S.J.KATHAWALLA S.J.KATHAWALLA S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. JJ. JJ. 5th December, 2008 5th December, 2008 5th December, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. It is the petitioner’s case that he is a B.Sc.D.Ed and eligible for being appointed to the permanent sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner has put in continuous service from 1999 till 30th April, 2001 as Shikshan Sevak. When the petitioner learnt that her services were discontinued from 1st April, 2001 along with similarly situated teachers between 2001 and 2007 the other similarly situated teachers who were discontinued in the year 2001 had filed various writ petitions and this Court had passed various orders inter alia directing appointments/absorption of those petitioners as Shikshan Sevaks who were -2- similarly placed as the petitioner in Nashik Municipal Corporation’s school. Three such orders dated 24th August, 2004, 29th April, 2005 and 8th February, 2006 are annexed as Exhibits G, H and I to the petition respectively. 2. The petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.383 of 2007. However, the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the said petition with liberty to make a representation to the authorities and approach this Court if occasion so arises. By letter dated 17th September, 2007 the Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation School Board, Nashik informed the Desk Officer, School Education Department, Mantralaya that the petitioner was working during the period 1999 to 2001. It is further mentioned in the said letter that two posts are vacant on the establishment Municipal Corporation School Board but the petitioner has not been absorbed as she was not the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9412 of 2004, 9452 of 2004, 10312 of 2004 and 4833 of 2005. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to file the present writ petition. -3- 3. From the orders placed before us, more particularly Exh.H passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9412, 9452 and 10312 of 2004 on 29th April, 2005, it is clear that the said orders would apply to all the Shikshan Sevaks who are appointed on honorarium basis in the year 1999 and were in service till 2001 if they possess the requisite qualifications required for the post of primary teacher i.e. D.Ed and their appointments were to be made on getting sanction to the admissible post as of date. 4. In view thereof, the said order would also apply to the petitioner and the respondents ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner favourably. Finding in the letter dated 17th September, 2007 that the petitioner cannot be absorbed because she was not the petitioner in the writ petition is incorrect and does not disentitle the petitioner from being considered in terms of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent no.1 has stated before us that there are some vacancies sanctioned to the admissible post. In view thereof, the respondent State is directed to consider the -4- representation/case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in the matter within a period of 12 weeks from today. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.)