(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6400 OF 2005 Shivaji Jairam Kadam, Aged : 29 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Bamni (Pati), Post : Mangal Sanghvi, Taluka : Kandhar, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32). 2. The Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati. 3. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Kinwat, District : Nanded. 4. Kailashwasi Ulash Memorial Trust, Kandhar (Through its President : Shri Dattatraya Gurunathrao Kurde, Aged : 45 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Bahadarpura, Taluka : Kandhar, District : Nanded. (2) 5. The Headmaster, Sadguru Adiwasi Ashram School, Bahadarpura, Taluka : Kandhar, District : Nanded. 6. The Director, Maharashtra Council for Educational Research & Training, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-30. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 served (Absent) ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner who was appointed as untrained Teacher and continues to work as such, seeks admission to Postal D.Ed. course, so also, approval to the appointment. (3) 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 6, places on record a communication, dated 20th July 2009, received by him, from the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Kinwat (District : Nanded). Perusal of the said communication reveals that the petitioner is already admitted to the Postal D.Ed. course in December 2008. Thus, main grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that during the pendency of the petition, service of the petitioner was protected by an order dated 8th September 2005. It is asserted that the petitioner continues to work without any interruption. In that view of the matter, a further request is made to direct the management to forward the proposal for drawing salary of the petitioner, as an untrained Teacher, as was being drawn earlier for initial period of few years. 4. We grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the school management, so also, the respondent no.3, with a view to claim salary for the period for which the petitioner has actually worked and has not been paid salary as the approval was not accorded by the respondent no.3 to the continuance of the petitioner as an untrained Teacher. The respondent no.3 (4) shall, after making proper inquiry, take a decision, in accordance with law, in regard to the payment of salary to the petitioner as an untrained Teacher. We hope and trust, that the management shall forward the proposal, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six weeks from today, to the respondent no.3. 5. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6400