1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7438 OF 2008 Mahendra s/o.Narayanrao Daud .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. S.G. Thombare, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader, for respondent No.1 Mrs. K.P. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for respondent NO.6 Mr. V.R. And P.V. Langhe, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Mr. P.S. Pawar,Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 11th FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1] The present petitioner claims to be working as Assistant Teacher in a school administered by the respondent No. 5 society and according to the petitioner, education is imparted to mentally retarded children in the said school. The petitioner is seeking the relief in the nature of issuance of directions to the respondent No.6 to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner from the year 1998. A further prayer is made for release 2 of salary to the petitioner from the year 1998 onwards. The petition has been filed belatedly in the year 2008. The petitioner emphatically submits that he is still working and performing his duties and hence, he is entitled to receive the salary. 2] The school management i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5, has filed an affidavit in reply, stating therein that the school which was initially started could not get recognition and is shut down since the year 2001. In view of the dispute as to whether the school is really being run or shut down in 2001, we had directed the Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad to file an affidavit touching this aspect. 3] An affidavit has been filed by the Social Welfare Officer, stating therein that initially, though the school was started, it could not get recognition and hence, by passing a resolution on 25th April, 2000, the school has been closed from the end of Academic Session 2000-2001. It is thus clear that even, according to the Social Welfare Officer, the school is not being run from June, 2001 onwards. It is also submitted in the affidavit that 3 the school not being a recognized school, there is no question of approval from the officer concerned. 4] In that view of the matter, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner is capable of being granted. Besides this, a disputed question of fact, as to whether the petitioner is, in fact, teaching in the school or otherwise, arises for consideration, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. 5] In the result, writ petition is summarily dismissed. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] Grt/-