1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3579 OF 2009 1. Shaikh Shakur Balam Inamdar, Age-36 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Kukana, Tal.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar 2. Narayan Manik Shekde, Age-26 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Undarkhed, Post-Suleman Devla, Tal.Ashti, Dist.Beed 3. Vishnu Dashrath Najan, Age-39 years, Occu-Service, R/o.At and Post : Bhatkudgaon, Tal.Shevgaon, Dist.Ahmednagar PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Raja Shiv Chatrapati Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Mukindpur, Tal.Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through it’s President Ramdas Gahininath Golhar, Age-48 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o. As above. 2. Raje Sambhaji Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kautha, Tal.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar, Through its In-charge Head Master, Bhausaheb S/o.Ramrao Jadhav, Age-39 years, Occu-Service, R/o. As above. 3. The Education Officer, (Secondary), 2 Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 4. The State of Maharashtra, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. RESPONDENTS Mr.L.V.Sangit, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.3 and 4 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/08/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for directing respondent no.3 and 4 to decide the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioners as an Assistant Teachers. 3. Notice of this petition came to be issued but respondent no.1 and 2 are not represented by any counsel though they are served. However, since no relief is claimed by the petitioners against respondent no.1 and 2, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondent no.1 and 2 in respect of final disposal of this petition. 3 4. The respondent no.1 and 2 had submitted their proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioners in 2007 and the said proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioners is pending since then. In the light of that therefore we are incline to allow this petition. Shri.Jadhav, learned AGP on behalf of respondent no.3 states that the said proposal would be decided by respondent no.3 within 4 weeks from today. We accept the said statement as an undertaking to the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertake to pay the deficit court fee within one week from today. 5. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and respondent no.3 is directed to decide the proposal of the petitioners, if pending, in accordance with Law, within a period of 4 weeks from today and to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. 6. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Authenticated copy of this order duly signed by the Shirastedar of this Court be provided to either counsel on request. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/wp3579-09