1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1010 OF 1994 Miss. Sarala Gulabchand Agrawal, Age : 26 years, R/o Managal Nivas, Shivajinagar, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Principal, H.G. Temani Hindi Junior College, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon 2. Hindi Seva Mandal, Bhusawal, through its President, having its office at Shastri Vidhyanagar, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon 3. The Dy. Director of Edn., Nasik Region, Nasik 4. The State of Maharashtra 5. Shri D. M. Rathi, C/o Bhusawal Arts, Science and Commerce College, P.O. Nahata, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS Mr L.V. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents no.3 & 4 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.3 & 4 to withdraw or cancel communication dated 17.12.1993, 25.1.1994 and 22.2.1994 issued by respondent no.3, respectively. The petitioner also prays for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid impugned orders. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus:- Petitioner claims to have been appointed by an order dated 27.5.1992 in leave vacancy of one Shri S.P. Kulkarni for a period of one year and thereafter an appointment order came to be issued to the petitioner in the year 1993-94. In the meantime the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Region, Nasik, by its communication dated 17.12.1993 informed the respondents no.1 & 2 college to accommodate respondent no.5 in place of the petitioner as per rule 26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. It appears that the management made certain representations to respondent no.3 explaining the difficulties in respect of 3 absorption of respondent no.5 but the same came to be turned down by Deputy Director of Education. By another communication dated 22.9.1994 the respondent no.3 reiterated the absorption of respondent no.5 in place of the petitioner under a threat of subjecting the institution to action and penalty in the event of non observation of the said directive. The aforesaid orders are subject to challenge in this petition. 3. Notice of this petition came to be issued to respondents and Rule came to be issued by this Court on 14.10.1998. Despite issuance of Rule and receipt of notice of this Court, no affidavit in reply has been tendered by any of the respondents. During the course of hearing, Shri V.H. Dighe, learned A.G.P. has tendered before us a communication dated 21.7.2009 which recites that the respondent no.5, who was rendered surplus, was absorbed subsequent to the filing of the petition in another school. We take the said communication on record and mark it “X” for the purposes of identification. 4. According to us, since respondent no.5 has already been absorbed in another school, the petition deserves to be allowed in respect of quashing of the impugned orders. No reasons have been advanced by the respondents as to why there was insistence on the management for absorption of respondent no.5 in place of the petitioner. In any event, the question now only remains of academic interest. 4 5. In the light of that, therefore, this petition succeeds and impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) and (B) to the petition with no order as to costs. [ A.V. POTDAR, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 5