1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5981/2006 ( Dr. Nitin Upadhye ..V/s.. The Director, Vocational Education & Training + 4 ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N.R. Saboo, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Khade, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. Mr. A.S. Kilor, counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS JJ. DATE : 25 th MARCH , 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2 and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 31/3/2000 on the post of Ophthalmic Technician by respondent no.4 – Shri Shivaji Education Society. It is further contended that after the said appointment, the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval was forwarded by the respondent – management to the Deputy Director Vocational Education and Training, Amravati. The 2 learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of repeated reminders the Deputy Director did not take any decision on the said proposal one way or the other and same is still pending for decision with the respondent no.2 - Deputy Director Vocational Education and Training, Amravati. It is further contended that petitioner received a communication dated 21/1/2010 from the respondent – college whereby the petitioner is informed that if the approval is not granted by respondent no.2 within a stipulated period then the respondent no.5 will be constrained to terminate the services of the petitioner for want of approval. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances, has prayed that direction may be issued to respondent no.2 to take a decision on the proposal submitted by the respondent – college within a stipulated period and further prayed that till such time the services of the petitioner may be protected. The learned A.G.P. has submitted that the respondent no.2 shall decide the said proposal of the petitioner as per the directions of this Court. 3 In view of the above referred facts, we dispose of the writ petition with direction to respondent no.2 to decide the proposal of the petitioner in respect of grant of approval in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Till such period, we direct the parties to maintain status-quo as on today. The petitioner is at liberty to move the appropriate application for disbursement of the unpaid salary, in respect of the period during which the petitioner has factually rendered his services. If such an application is made, the same shall be decided within a period of four weeks in accordance with law from the receipt of the said application. C.A.W.618/2010 In view of the above order, the Civil Application No.618.2010 does not survive, hence disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.