1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4057 OF 2006 Shaikh Abdul Hamid S/o Shaikh Abdullah and others .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri S. V. Warad, Advocate h/f Shri P. G. Rodge, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri B. L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 22ND MARCH, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 2 2. The petitioners' have not pressed prayer clause "B". The petitioners contention is that they must be paid difference in the pay scale considering their appointment as teachers with respondent No. 3 in the B. Ed. pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a judgment delivered by Bombay High Court (Coram : Justice F. I. Rebello and Justice Naresh H. Patil) dated 06th May, 2004 in Writ Petition No. 4632 of 1999 and other connected writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment and order cited supra was dismissed. 3. We find that the petitioners were appointed in the school which was running Classes from I to VII standards. Out of the list of seven teachers annexed to Exhibit - E, we find that five teachers were holding B. Ed. qualification and two teachers were holding D. Ed. qualification. If we apply the ratio of cited judgment, then it is clear that the petitioners' would not be entitled for B. Ed. pay scale. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Shri Sagar Killarikar pointed out that the petitioners' abandoned the 3 services in the year 2006 itself and they are no more in the service of respondent/school. 5. In the light of the stand adopted by the management and reply filed and the judgment cited supra, the petition is meritless and same is dismissed [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/Mar.10