mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8276 OF 2008 Smt. Kanchan Laxman Borade nee Kanchan Ambadas Gaikwad .. .. PETITIONER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENTS Mr. G. M. Savagare for the petitioner Mr. Girish Gulkarni i/b S.R. Waghmare for R-4 & 5 Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP Mr. Sunil Dighe for intervener. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 2/9/2009 P.C. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the 5th respondent school in 1997. The petitioner is an open category candidate. The petitioner was appointed on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter according to the petitioner she is being appointed on year to year basis because the post is reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Relying on G.R. dated 5/12/1994 the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that for all these years a candidate from reserved category is not available the 5th respondent must give her benefit of G.R. dated 5/12/1994 and approval must be granted to the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Teacher on permanent basis. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1/10/2008 passed by the 2nd respondent whereby the 2nd respondent has rejected the proposal sent by the Headmaster of New English School, Nigdi. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the G.R. dated 5/12/1994. Learned AGP Mr. Sonawane has drawn our attention to affidavit of Bhaskar S. Babar, Deputy Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Sangli. We have also gone through the affidavit of Mr. Narayan Nivrutti Sawant, Secretary of the Shri Bhanshankari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Banali, i.e. respondent 4 herein. 3. Admittedly the petitioner is working with the 5th respondent from 3/8/1997. The petitioner comes from open category. In his affidavit Shri Babar, Deputy Education Officer has stated as under: “7. I, therefore, say that in view of the fact that the Government Resolution dated 5/12/1994, permitted the Respondent No. 4 Management to fill the post of Assistant Teacher by applying the ratio 50:50 i.e. 50 from the open category and 50 from the reserve category. The petitioner can be considered in the light of the said Government Resolution dated 5/12/1994, if the ratio is applied and the proposal is sent to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli for approval as the Petitioner has already worked for several years in the school run by Respondent No. 4, Management since 1997-98 till 2008-09. I, therefore, pray that an appropriate order may be passed.” 4. Affidavit filed by Shri Sawant, Secretary of the 4th respondent prima facie indicates that the 4th respondent has complied with the requirement of Rule 9 (9)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules. In view of the affidavit filed by Mr. Babar, the relevant portion of which we have quoted herein above, in our opinion it would be appropriate to direct the 4th respondent to submit proposal in the light of G.R. dated 5/12/1994 for the approval of the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Teacher. If such a proposal is submitted respondent 2 shall consider it in accordance with law. Order accordingly. We direct respondents 4 and 5 to submit the proposal within a period of four weeks from today and after the proposal is submitted the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate order thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt thereof. 5. An unnumbered Intervention Application is filed by one Balasaheb Rajaram Chavan. It is his case that he has been working with the 5th respondent for 22 years. He says that he is entitled to D. Ed. scale and that has been denied to him. In this petition, we are unable to deal with this prayer. We are informed that the petitioner has already filed a contempt petition. Needless to say that the petitioner will be free to prosecute that contempt petition. 6. We make it clear that if there are any other pending cases, they may be considered independently. In case the petitioner is granted approval that should not be impediment in the way of other persons whose cases may be pending with respondents 4 and 5. 7. Petition is disposed of. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)