1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2862 OF 2009. The President, Samata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,Latur,Dist.Latur and another ... Petitioners. Versus Madhav S/o Sajanrao Kamble and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.V.Naiknavare, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Pratap Rodge, advocate for the Respondent No. 1. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 29.03.2010. PER COURT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the 2 stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of the Grievances Committee dated 28.3.2008 passed in Appeal No.61/2005 and also prays for declaring that the appointment of the present Respondent No.1 is made by following due procedure of law. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the findings recorded by the Grievances Committee. The Grievances Committee had directed the petitioner to pay the salary of the Respondent No.1 since 1.4.2003. The undisputed position is that the proposal submitted by the petitioners taking approval to the appointment of the Respondent No.4 has not been decided. In that light of the matter, therefore, when particularly Respondent NO.3 has not applied its mind, this Court can not issue a writ declaring that the appointment of Respondent No.1 is in accordance with law. According to us, it would be appropriate to direct the Respondent 3 No.2 to decide the pending proposal, seeking approval to the appointment of Respondent No.1, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from today. 4. We, therefore, partly allow this petition by directing the Respondent No2. to decide the proposal of the petitioner seeking approval to the appointment of Respondent No.1, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from day and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed in respect of prayer clause (C) to the petition which is wrongly typed as (B). In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp286209 4