1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1986 OF 2009 Ramrao s/o Namdeorao Mule, Aged 37 years, Occu.Service as Assistant Teacher in Smt.Deubai Primary School, Loni (Khurd), R/o Loni (Khurd), Taluka Ardhapur, District Nanded .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Director, Maharashtra State Educational Research & Training Council, (Postal D.Ed. Course Division), Kumthekar Marg, 708, Pune 30 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded 4. The Secretary, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Loni (Khurd), Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.R.Choukidar, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents 1 and 2 Shri V.S.Panpatte, Advocate for respondent No.3 Respondent No.4 served, absent 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 4th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. At the outset Shri S.R.Choukidar, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for the relief prayed for at prayer clause (B) to the petition. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2.6.2008 thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for admission to Postal D.Ed. Course. The petitioner also prays for the consequential relief of directing the respondents to admit the petitioner for Postal D.Ed. Course. 4. We need not at this juncture refer to the facts of the present case as it would suffice to state that the petitioner who had earlier applied for admission for Postal D.Ed. Course was required to file Writ Petition No.7055 of 2005 in this Court 3 questioning the orders passed therein in respect of refusal of admission to the petitioner for Postal D.Ed. Course. The Division Bench of this Court which had heard Writ Petition No.7055 of 2005 allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for Postal D.Ed. Course in the next batch of the Postal D.Ed. students. At paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the Judgment, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the petitioner was eligible in all respects and, therefore, it had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the contention of respondents therein that the appointment of the petitioner was not as per the roster was wholly unsustainable and needed to be quashed and set aside. At paragraph 5 of the Judgment, the Division Bench considered the eligibility of the petitioner for admission to Postal D.Ed. Course. We may at this juncture usefully reproduce the observations of the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 5 of its Judgment which reads thus : “5. The eligibility criteria has been laid down for grant of admission to Postal D.Ed. course vide Government Resolution dated 2nd June 2000 and the condition at serial no.6 to the effect, that at least once the proposal for seeking approval to the appointment ought to have been moved by the Education Officer before 5th November 1997, came to be diluted 4 by issuing a corrigendum dated 11th July 2000 wherein the only requirement is that relevant information in regard to the service be assessed from the yearly inspection report. Thus, the petitioner satisfies the criteria, inasmuch as, the yearly inspection of the year 1996-97 and onwards clearly indicate that the petitioner was within the sanctioned strength of the teachers working in the schools and hence the rejection of admission to the petitioner to the Postal D.Ed. course on that count, was whooly unjust and unfair, requiring interference with the decision in exercise of writ jurisdiction.” 5. The respondents while considering the claim of the petitioner came to the conclusion that in the year 1998-99, 2003-04 and 2005-06 the name of the petitioner was not disclosed during the yearly inspection. The second reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner was that in the seniority list for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 the name of the petitioner appeared to have added subsequently. According to us the aforesaid observations are wholly unsustainable in the light of the fact that this Court at paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Judgment dated 12.6.2006 rendered in Writ Petition No.7055 of 2005, filed by the petitioner, had held the petitioner eligible for admission to Postal D.Ed. course. 5 5. In the light of that, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to the petitioner and direct the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner for the Postal D.Ed. Course in the next batch of Postal D.Ed. students. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/1986.09wp 6