1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5735 OF 2010 Anjumara Walidkhan Pathan, Age 28 years, Occ. Service, R/o Plot No.37, Garib Nawaz Nagar, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy served on Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, District Dhule. 3. Anjuman Faroge-E-Taleem, Maulavi Ganj, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule, through Secretary. 4. National Urdu High School, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule, through Head Master. ... RESPONDENTS (Respondent Nos.3 & 4 deleted as per leave granted on 27.7.2010) ..... Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 ..... 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 27th July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.): 1. Mr. Brahme, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, states that the petitioner may be permitted to delete respondent Nos.3 and 4 as no relief is claimed against them. Leave granted to delete at the risk of the petitioner. Deletion be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for several reliefs. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the petitioner restricts the relief in this petition to prayer clause (D), for deciding the pending proposals of the petitioner in accordance with law. In respect of prayer clause (C) to 3 the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for the aforesaid relief, but prays for liberty to pray for the said relief in the event the proposals are decided adverse to the petitioner. 4. In that light of the matter, therefore, since the proposals seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevika, on 1.12.2008 are pending consideration with the respondents, we direct the respondents to decide the said proposals within eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)