-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2008 Gayatri Panwar .. Petitioner. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. .. Respondents. --- --- --- Mr.Mihir Desai for the Petitioner. Mrs.P.A.Purandare for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.A.Nalawade, AGP with Mr. S.S.Joshi, AGP for State. Mr. Ravindra Jakkani, Inspector of Schools,P/South Ward is present. --- CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 26th NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 26th NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 26th NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this court against the non-grant of approval to her appointment. By order dated November 27, 2008 we had formulated various contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was adjourned to enable the counsel for the respondent corporation to seek instructions. -: 2 :- 2. On behalf of the corporation, the learned counsel on instructions from Shri Ravindra Jakkani, Inspector South Ward-P, submits that there is now a post available as on 30th June, 2007. The petitioner, in terms of the reliefs, is eligible and qualified. The petitioner’s case for that post would be considered as on 30th June, 2007. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s appointemnt by the corporation initially would be as a Sikshan Sevak and not as a primary teacher. 3. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that this is not a case of fresh recruitment but of non-grant to the petitioner the approval to the post. Whatever that be the position, it will be open to the petitioner herein to represent before the respondent corporation and or its officer in respect of his matter. The competent officer of the corporation to decide the controversy and if the petitioner is still aggrieved, liberty to the petitioner to take whatever steps that she will be entitled to. 4. Considering the statement made on behalf of the respondent corporation that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for appointment on the post as on 30.7.2004, the learned counsel for the petitioner does -: 3 :- not press this petition. Statement made on behalf of the corporation by the respondent counsel is accepted. 5. The School has already forwarded the proposal. The respondent/authorities to consider the same and dispose if of within four weeks from today. 6. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) (R.S. MOHITE,J.) .....