1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5999 OF 2008 Kakasaheb Sudhakar Aware ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.G.Thombre Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H.Dighe,A.G.P. for Respondent-State. Shri.K.P.Bharaswadkar,Advocate for respondent NO.2 Shri.A.B.Kale,Advocate for respondent Nos 4 and 5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to grant the approval to the post of peon, held by the petitioner from 18th June, 2003, in the school run by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 3. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed affidavit- 2 in-reply through Sajan Kanurao Ghungarde, Treasurer of the Management. In para No.3 of the affidavit-in-reply the deponent contended that all these acts of bogus appointments are done by the then Principal Mr. L.V.Gore. The Management was not aware of these bogus appointments and the signatures on the service book are also forged as the Principal himself was involved in the act. The custody of all these papers was with the Principal. The learned Counsel for the respondent- Education Officer submits that proposal in respect of the petitioner was not received. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has signed the Muster Register till the year 2005. Thereafter, the Management kept separate Register and not allowed the petitioner to sign the Muster Register, though the petitioner was attending the school. 5. The parties have raised disputed question in respect of petitioner’s work as peon in the 3 Institution. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the management that the petitioner is not in service and discharging his duty as peon, the petitioner’s remedy lies elsewhere. 6. In the light of the stand adopted by the Management no interference is called for in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Act. In case the petitioner desires he may resort to appropriate remedy as permissible in law. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK