wp2660.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2660 OF 2009 Afkar Education Society Beed, Through its Secretary, Mirza Ashraf Saeed Baig, Age-40 years, Occu:Secretary of the said Institution, R/o-Beed, Tq. & Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) State of Maharashtra, Principal Secretary, School Education Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Director of Education (Secondary) and Higher Secondary (M.S.), Pune, 3) The Deputy Director of Education, Station Road, Aurangabad, 4) Education Officer (S), Zilla Parishad, Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. S.V. Chillarge Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... wp2660.09 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 22ND AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner applied for starting Secondary School in urdu medium for the academic year 2005-2006. The District Committee recommended the case of the Petitioner to the State Level Committee. The Education Officer communicated to the Petitioner that his proposal is not accepted. 3. The Respondent No.4 filed affidavit in reply. The deponent submits that the State Level Committee was not in favour of the Petitioner as one of the reasons in rejecting the proposal of the Petitioner was that in the concerned area there are about 12 Urdu Medium Secondary Schools wp2660.09 3 in the vicinity of the Beed city, run either by Zilla Parishad or private management. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has not received decision, if any, taken by the State Government, and therefore the State Government be directed to take decision. 5. The learned A.G.P. submits that based on the remarks of the State Level Committee, the proposal has been rejected and the decision has already been communicated to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the proposal of the petitioner was for the academic year 2005-2006 and the State would be coming with the new policy and the Petitioner would be entitled to file fresh proposal. 6. We find that the Petitioner filed the proposal for the academic year 2005-2006 and now wp2660.09 4 the academic year 2011-2012 has already been started. The State is proposing to frame new policy. The Petitioner, at appropriate stage, according to the policy of the State, would be entitled to file fresh proposal. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG11