( 1 ) WP1854/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1854 OF 2011 1 Balaji Bhagwanrao Pathak, Age 40 years, Occu. Hostel Supdt., R/o, C/o Indira Gandhi Adarsha Ashram Shala, A/P Horti, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. PETITIONERS 2 Balaji Ramrao Sutar, Age 39 years, Occu. Hostel Supdt., R/o, C/o Shri Sant Maruti Maharaj Kanegaonkar Prathamik Ashram Shala, A/P Bhosaga, Taluka Lohara, District Osmanabad. 3 Rajendra Bhaskarrao Solankar, Age 34 years, Occu. Hostel Supdt., R/o, C/o Nanduram Uchcha Prathamik Ashram Shala, Bhausaheb Nagar, Balsur, Taluka Omarga, District Osmanabad. 4 Bankat Rama Rathod, Age 41 years, Occu. Hostel Supdt., R.o, C/o Shri Kulswamini Prathamik Ashram Shala, A/P Jalkot, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. 5 Tejas Vishwanath Chavan, Age 30 years, Occu. Hostel Supdt., R/o, C/o Shivneri Prathamik Ashram Shala, A/P Jawla Bazar, Taluka Aundha (Nagnath), District Hingoli. V E R S U S 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. RESPONDENTS ( 2 ) WP1854/11 2 The Principal Secretary, Social Justice Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 3 The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 4 The Director, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes Welfare Directorate, Maharashtra State, Pune. 5 The Special District Social Welfare Officer, Osmanabad. 6 The Special District Social Welfare Officer, Hingoli. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for the State CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE,JJ. DATED : 27th June, 2011 ORDER : (Per D.B. Bhosale, J. ) 1. This petition is placed for speaking to the minutes at the instance of learned A.G.P.. He invited our attention to the order dated 18th March, 2011, whereby we disposed of writ petition No. 1854 of 2011, and while doing so, issued directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to decide the representation made by the petitioner in pursuance of the said order. In paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the operative portion of the order, we have made reference to ( 3 ) WP1854/11 respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In paragraph No. 1, we have allowed the petitioner to make representation to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and then we have issued directions to decide the representation to all the three respondents. As a matter of fact, such direction ought to have been issued only to respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection for deleting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 from the operative portion of the order dated 18th March, 2011, and mention only respondent No. 2 in its place. Office is directed to issue fresh order dated 18th March, 2011 duly modified by this order. 2. At this stage, learned A.G.P. seeks extension of time to decide the representation. We accordingly extend the time to decide the representation by eight weeks from today. ( A. V. NIRGUDE,J. ) ( D.B. BHOSALE,J. ) SRM/wp/1854/11/27/6/11