{1} wp262010.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2620 OF 2010 1 Shri Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Khanapur Chitta, Taluka and District Hingoli, through its President Shri Sheshrao Limbaji Kadam, age: 55 years, Occ: service, R/o Hingoli. 2 The Head Master (Incharge), Vidyasagar Vidyalaya, Khanapur Chitta, Shri Sanjay s/o Annarao Takalgavankar, age: 40 years, Occ: service, presently residing at Hingoli, Tq. and District Hingoli. Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Director of Education (Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune. 3 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. 4 The District Central Cooperative Bank, Parbhani, Branch at Khanapur Chitta, Tq. And District Parbhani, through its Branch Manager. Respondents {2} wp262010.odt Mr. S.R.Barlinge, advocate for petitioners Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.S.T.Ghute, advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 06 th December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.): 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The grievance raised in the petition is that Respondent No.3 – Education Officer is not sanctioning the proposal for grant of scholarship to the students taking education in Vidyasagar Vidyalaya, Khanapur Chitta, and other schools run by Shri Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Khanapur Chitta, and that the Respondent No.4 – Bank is also not accepting the cheques. 3 The reason given in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondent – Education Officer is that because of the dispute between the two groups of the Management, the proposal of scholarship is pending since long. However, in the affidavit-in- reply, it is also stated that insofar as salary of the employees is concerned, the same is regularly paid by the authorities. {3} wp262010.odt 4 We find that on account of the dispute between the two groups of the Management, the students should not suffer. Apart from that, when the Education Officer is releasing the salary of the employees, we see no reason as to why the scholarship should also not be released. 5 We, therefore, direct the Respondent – Education Officer to accept the proposal for grant of scholarship, if it is signed by the Head Masters/In charge Head Masters of the schools concerned, who have been approved for the purpose of signing the pay bills. It is further made clear that Respondent No.4 – Bank shall also release the amount if the cheques are signed by the concerned Head Masters. 6 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp262010