IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7603 OF 2003 Jayashri Manohar Kale..... ... .. Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors.. ... Respondents. Ms.Manisha Parasnis with G.S.Godbole, Adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.P.I.Khemani, AGP for R.Nos.1 to 4. None for Respondents 5 and 6. CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR AND V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. 27.04.2006. PC: When this petition came up for hearing learned advocate appearing for the petitioner pointed out circumstances in which the matter was decided earlier. 2. This petition came up for final hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 10.2.2006 and by a reasoned order of that date the petition was allowed with the following observations: “4. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 25.6.2002 rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. Respondent No.4, the Social Welfare Officer, Grade I, Zilla Parishad is directed to ensure that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 abide by the directions issued by this 1 Court in Writ Petition NO.2858 of 2000 and reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.” For coming to that conclusion as mentioned in para 4 above, adequate reasons were given by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs of that order. 3. Though Civil Application No.714 of 2006 was filed by respondent No.6 seeking recalling of this order as he was not heard or was not present when the matter came up on 10.2.2006, this error on the part of respondent No.6 was accepted and the matter was restored to file. The order dated 10.2.2006 was recalled. The matter has thus come for final hearing again today. Today again none appears for respondent No.6. This only reiterates the callous attitude of respondent No.6 towards this litigation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5. We have no alternate but to decide this petition all over again. It is pertinent to note that after getting the petitioner restored respondent No.6 has not even filed reply to the main petition nor has cared to appear before this Court when the matter was heard. 5. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication received by her from respondent No.6 informing her that her request for continuing in her post as a teacher in the Deaf and Dumb School was rejected. The petitioner was informed that her representation could not be considered as she did not have the requisite qualifications. The petitioner contends that she is entitled to the benefit of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.7.2000 in Writ Petition NO.2858 of 2000 and is, therefore, entitled to continue in service as a special teacher in the Deaf and Dumb 2 School. 6. After completion of her Secondary School Certificate examination conducted by Maharashtra State Secondary School Certificate Board in 1989, the Petitioner was admitted to the Diploma in Education for Hearing Impaired (for short, hereinafter referred to as `D.Ed. H.I.') in Swami Samartha Mookbadhir Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Solapur. The petitioner successfully completed her D.Ed.H.I. She was appointed as a special t3eacher in the Resident Deaf and Dumb School conducted by respondent No.6 in which respondent No.5 was the Headmaster. The Rehabilitation Council of India which was established after the petitioner had completed her D.Ed.H.I. withdrew the recognition granted to the institution from which the petitioner had completed her D.Ed.H.I. Some teachers and a union of ex-students had filed writ petitions in this Court as the recognition granted to some institutions including Swami Samartha Mookbadhir Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Solapur was withdrawn by the Rehabilitation Council of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as `RCI') established under the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. This Court by its judgment dated 25.7.2000 held that since the recognition of these institutions have been withdrawn after the candidates had successfully completed their D.Ed.H.I. Course, it was necessary to protect their careers. The RCI was directed to conduct a Bridge Course for the candidates who have passed D.Ed. H.I. From the two institutions including the institution from which the petitioner had passed her D.Ed.H.I. Course prior to 1994 and upon completion of this course, their names were to be entered in the register of the Council. The petitioner 3 completed the Bridge Course in 1999. The RCI did not issue the petitioner any registration certificate till 10.9.1999. A copy of that certificate was submitted to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by the petitioner for being permitted to continue as a special teacher in the school. Several representations were made by the petitioner to be retrained in service on account of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. However, on 25.6.2002, Respondent No.6 rejected her representation on the ground that she did not have the requisite qualifications. Hence, this petition. 7. Ms.Parasnis, appearing for the petitioner, rightly pointed out to us that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.2858 of 2000. There is no dispute that the petitioner has completed the D.Ed.H.I. Course from Swami Samartha Mookbadhir Lohaya Centre priro to 1994. There is also no dispute that the petitioner had completed the Bridge Course in the year 1999 and her name has been entered in the register of the RCI. In these circumstances, the refusal by respondent No.6 to retain the petitioner in service is unwarranted and unsustainable. 8. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 25.6.2002 rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. Respondent No.4, the Social Welfare Officer, Grade I, Zilla Parishad is directed to ensure that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 abide by the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition NO.2858 of 2000 and reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 9. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 4 27.4.06 5