1411wp4895.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4895 of 2011 (Mohandas S. Kale and Ors. vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 14/11/2011. Heard Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Adv. for the petitioners, Mr.A.M.Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.M.I.Dhatrak, Adv. for respondent no.3. This petition is directed against the order dt.17.1.2011 passed by respondent no.2/Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of this Court that present petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.940 of 2011 along with other teachers by raising same challenge to the order dt. 17.1.2011 issued by respondent no.2. Said petition came to be disposed of by an order dt.22.8.2011 and this Court in clear terms rejected the challenge raised by the petitioners to order dt.17.1.2011. The 1411wp4895.11.odt 2 relevant portion of order reads thus : “ We, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the orders of absorption given to other petitioners. In so far as the compliance of provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is concerned, the matter is already receiving attention of this Court in other petition. With liberty to the petitioner nos. 3 to 5 to raise that challenge again if they so desire, we dispose of the petition. No costs. “ The above referred observations made by the Division Bench of this Court clearly demonstrates that this Court refused to show any indulgence at that stage so far as order dt.17.1.2011 issued by the Deputy Director of Education is concerned. However, so far as compliance of the provisions of the Right of the Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2009”) is concerned, that is being considered in other petition by this Court and therefore, liberty was granted to present petitioners to approach this Court if placement as per the provisions of Act of 2009 is done 1411wp4895.11.odt 3 and if petitioners are aggrieved. At this stage, Mr.M.I.Dhatrak, Adv. for respondent no.3 has submitted that the procedure stipulated as per the provisions of the Act of 2009 shall be completed by taking appropriate steps within a period of three months. The petition suffers from lack of merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais