1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3489 OF 2009 Khushal s/o Kerba Manke, Age : 32 years, Occ.Service, r/o Itgyal (Pade), Post : Ambulga (Bk), Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Director, Vimukta Jati, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes Welfare Directorate, Maharashtra State, Pune 3. Special Social Welfare Officer, Latur, Dist. Latur 4. Devnagari Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Devani, Tq. Devani, Dist. Latur, Through its Secretary 5. Rambhau Mhalgi Primary Ashram School, Wadhavana (Bk), Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur, Through its Head Master ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.G. Rodge, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3; Mr V.V. Tamke, Advocate for respondents no.4 & 5 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 22nd April, 2010 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. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner, prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to grant permanent approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.5 school with effect from June, 2003 and to release all arrears of salary of the petitioner. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. On behalf of the respondents it is urged before us that the school has been derecognised and there are no students and consequently the petitioner has absolutely no right to pray for the relief prayed for in the petition. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner, who came to be appointed in the year 2001 as the petitioner belonged to Nomadic Tribe category was granted approval for 3 two academic years i.e. 2001-02 and 2002-03. Thereafter on 20.11.2007 a proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner was submitted before the respondent no.3. Since then the said proposal dated 20.11.2007 has remained pending. In the light of the pendency of the aforesaid proposal, according to us it would be wholly inappropriate for us to decide contentious issues raised by the respective parties in their pleadings. 4. According to us, the interest of justice would be subserved if the respondent is directed to decide pending proposal in accordance with law within four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. We thus allow this petition to the limited extent as indicated above and make Rule absolute by directing respondent no.3 to decide the pending proposal, dated 20.11.2007, in accordance with law, within four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp3489.09