(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 596 of 2010 (In Writ Petition No. 8415 of 2005) Usha w/o. Nandkumar Ratolikar, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Was serving as Lecturer with District Institution of Education .. Applicant and Training (DIET), Nanded, (Petitioner in R/o. Holi, Nanded, W.P. ) Taluka and District : Nanded. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Department of General Education, M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Secretary, General Education Department, M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Director of Education, M.S., Pune. 4. The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Nanded. 5. Amol s/o. Keshavrao Nilekar, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. At present Ambika Nagar, Opp. to Ambika Mangal Karyalaya, Near Waman Nagar, Nanded, Taluka and District : Nanded. (2) 6. Vivekvardhini B.Ed. College, .. Non-applicants MIDC Area, Opp. to Corporation's (Respondents Swimming Pool, Nanded, in W.P. ) Taluka and District : Nanded. ....................... Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. M.M. Joshi, Advocate, for respondent no.5. Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate, for respondent no.6. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH JANUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. This application is moved by the original petitioner, who was granted a limited protection by an order dated 10th December 2008. Under the said order, this court made it clear that the petitioner shall be continued in the post of Lecturer until a candidate selected by Maharashtra Public Service Commission is available for manning the post held by the (3) present petitioner. 2. It is the case of the respondents, that a candidate is very much available, who is duly selected by M.P.S.C. and his name has been mentioned in Civil Application No. 12415/2009, Shri Balaji Diagmbar Shelke. The said person is directed to take charge of the post wherein the present petitioner was working, vide order dated 5th November 2009. According to the respondents, the said person is very much available and hence the petitioner came to be relieved from the post of Lecturer and the said action is squarely under the orders passed by this court, dated 10th December 2008. Hence, no fault can be found with the action on the part of the respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner will be facing undue hardship for the reason that, on the one hand, the petitioner has been relieved by the respondent no.4, as a candidate selected by M.P.S.C. is available, whereas, on the other hand, parent institution viz. respondent no.6 is denying to accommodate the petitioner on the ground that lien has lapsed on the expiry of two years from the date of order of deputation. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant / (4) petitioner submits that the petitioner has been relieved illegally during the pendency of Civil Application No. 12415/2009 filed by the State. 6. However, we do not see any illegality in the same, for the obvious reason that the action of relieving of the petitioner is resorted to, under the order passed by this court, dated 10th December 2008. Hence, we are not inclined to grant interim relief claimed in the application. 7. The Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. 8. However, having regard to the nature of controversy and age of the petitioner, who is due to retire within a period of two years, the petition need to be fixed for final hearing. 9. Hence, it is directed that the Writ Petition No. 8415/2005 be fixed for final hearing after six weeks. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ca596