1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3655 OF 2009 Sau. Sarojini D/o Devidasrao Ghayal, Age 45 years, Occu. Service, R/o Ghayal Niwas, Laxman Nagar, Beed. Distrcit Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Maharashtra State Council for Examination, Pune. 3) The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed District Beed. 4) The Secretary, Aruna Asaf Ali Mahila Board Sant Tukaram Primary School, Baradari Niwas, Malives, Beed District Beed. 5) The Head Master, Sant Tukaram Primary School, Baradari Niwas, Malives, Beed District Beed. ... Respondents. ­­­­­­­­ Shri. A.D. Shinde Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Respondent No. 1.. 2 Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Shri Uttam Bondar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 Shri V.A. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No. 4 & 5. ­­­­­­­­ CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & NARESH H PATIL,JJ. DATE: 18th SEPTEMBER, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :(PER COURT P.V. HARDAS, J.) 1) Rule. Rule Returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. At the outset Shri A.D. Shinde, learned counsel appearing for petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner does not press for the relief at prayer clause ‘B’ & ‘C’ to the petition. But prays that directions be issued to the respondents for considering the proposal of the petitioner for approval as an untrained teacher, as the petitioner does not hold the requisite qualification of D.Ed. 2) Undisputedly the petitioner does not hold requisite qualification of D.Ed., Which is 3 essential for grant of approval as a trained teacher. Shri Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 states that the management would submit a proposal, seeking approval, to the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an untrained teacher. The aforesaid proposal would be submitted within a period of two weeks from today. Since the management intends to submit the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval as an untrained teacher, according to us, it would be appropriate if respondents examine the proposal and decide the same in accordance with law. 3) We, accordingly, allow this petition and accept the statement of learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that the proposal of the petitioner seeking approval to her appointment as untrained teacher would be submitted within two weeks from today. We direct the respondent No. 3 to decide the said proposal strictly, in 4 accordance with law, within eight (8) weeks from the date of submission of proposal and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. The interim order of this Court that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner, to continue till the proposal of the petitioner is decided in accordance with law by respondent No. 3. 4) Rule made absolute on the terms indicated above with no orders as to costs. (NARESH H PATIL, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J) sdm/3655.09