1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6485 OF 2008. Udaygiri Yuvak Mitra Mandal and another ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Sontakke, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr.A.N.Gaddime, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the Respondent No.4 ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 15.01.2010. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioners challenge the order rendered by the appellate Officer/Divisional 2 Social Welfare Officer, Latur Division, in the proceedings of Appeal No.2/2007, whereby and whereunder direction was given to reinstate the Respondent No.4 - Smt.Punam on the post of Managing Superintendent. Her reversion order rendered by the Secretary of the petitioners was held as illegal and came to be quashed. The reversion was directed on the ground that the Respondent No.4 was not duly qualified for the appointment to the post of Managing Superintendent. The competent authority held that appointment of the Respondent No.4 - Smt.Punam was already approved and she was shown senior in the cadre of instructors. It has been held that there was no question of her reversion due to technical reasons when she was promoted from the cadre of instructors. The competent authority also noticed that the petitioners had submitted letter dated 17.5.2007 for approval of the employment as per the roster point. It appears that the contentions of the petitioners were duly considered by the competent authority and, therefore, demotion of the Respondent No.4 was held as illegal. 3 3. The subsequent developments may be noticed. It is stated at the Bar that the petitioners' School for handicapped students has been derecognised and is closed down. Mr.Gaddime, learned advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate states that now the petitioners institution and the School are not functioning at all. Therefore, the Respondent No.4 Smt.Punam has made representation to the competent authority for her shifting to another School in accordance with the Government Policy. Considering the subsequent development, the petitioners have no right to challenge the order pertaining to reinstatement of Respondent No.4 as Managing Superintendent nor there appears any merit in the petition having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp648508