- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2042/2009 Shaikh Najema Fakirsab, age 33 yrs., occu.service, r/o Hanmantwadi Market Yard, Latur Tq. & Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur. Dist.Latur. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. Dist.Latur. 4. Rastrajagruti Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha, Near Central Bus Stand, Behind Congress Bhavan, Latur. Dist.Latur. Through its Secretary. 5. Dr.Jakir Husen Marathi Samantar Prathamik Shala, Zinat Society, Khori Galli, Latur. Through its Head Master. ...Respondents... ..... Shri P.G. Rodge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.B. Ghatge, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent no.3. Respondent nos.4 & 5 served. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. - 2 - DATE: 14.08.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.) : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] At the outset, Shri Rodge, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks oral leave to amend the petition for incorporating a relief of directing the respondent no.3 – Education Officer (Primary) to decide the representations of the petitioner annexed by the petitioner at Exhibit F collectively dated 9.2.2009. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3] Shri Rodge, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the light of the amended prayer clause, the petitioner does not press for the reliefs prayed at prayer clauses (B) & (C) and prays for grant of liberty to file a petition praying for the reliefs at prayer clauses (B) & (C) in the event the representation of the petitioner dated 9.2.2009 is decided adverse to the interest of the petitioner. We see no impediment whatsoever in acceding to the request of the petitioner for granting him the aforesaid liberty. 4] By virtue of the amended prayer clause, the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 9.2.2009. In the light of the limited relief, which the petitioner hash sought for, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 5] Undisputed, the aforesaid representation has not been decided by the respondents. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the said representation. The management – - 3 - respondent nos.4 & 5, though have been served, are absent. No notice of final disposal of the petition has been issued to the respondent nos.4 & 5. However, since no relief is prayed for against the respondent nos.4 & 5, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice of final disposal to the respondent nos.4 & 5. 6] In the light of what is observed above, this petition succeeds and the respondent no.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 9.2.2009 within a period of three months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. We direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent no.3 – Education Officer in connection with the hearing of the representation on 2.9.2009. The Education Officer to decide the representation within three months from 2.9.2009. 7] Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c1480927