1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1335 OF 2009 Ramesh s/o Raghunath Mahalinge, Age : 41 years, Occ.Nil, C/o Burud Galli, Vishnu Nagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra School Education Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai Through its Secretary 2. Marathwada Shikshan Sanstha, Nanded, Through its President Dr. Wadekar Building, Near Shivaji Chowk, Nanded 3. Rajshri Shahu Vidyalaya, [Through its Head Master] Vasant Nagar, Nanded 4. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded 5. Mr B.R. Aglave, Occu.Peon, Rajshri Shahu Vidyalaya, Vasant Nagar, Nanded ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.M. Nagargoje, Advocate holding for Mr R.J. Godbole for the petitioner; 2 Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 4; Mr R.B. Narwade, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3; Mr G.P. Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.5. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE :28th JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for the reliefs prayed for at prayer clause (D) and (E) to the petition. 3. By virtue of the orders dated 3.10.2008 and 11.10.2008 issued by respondents no.2 & 3, the respondents no.2 & 3 had expressed their disinclination to absorb the petitioner as Junior Clerk in the said school. The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition. 4. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents no.2 & 3 have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply at paragraph 9 it is stated that the respondents no.2 & 3, pursuant to the directions of the Education Officer (respondent no.4), had absorbed three persons in their institution and 3 were ready to comply with the directions of respondent no.4 in respect of absorption of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 states that necessary orders in respect of absorption of the petitioner as Junior Clerk would be issued by respondents no.2 & 3 within one week from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. Since no relief is claimed against respondent no.5, this petition stands dismissed in respect of prayer clause (D) and (E) to the petition. We allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders/letters dated 3.10.2008 and 11.10.2008. 5. This petition is accordingly partly allowed and Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. [ A.V. POTDAR, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] amj/wp1335.09 4