1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2009 1. Gramodyogic Shikshan Mandal, Satara Road, Aurangabad, through its General Secretary. 2. M.I.T. (MCVC) Junior College, CIDCO, N-4, Aurangabad. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2. The Director of Vocational Education & Training, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai – 400 001. 3. The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Regional Office, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 4th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of 2 learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuing a writ for quashing and setting aside the policy decision promulgated by the respondent No.1 providing the new staffing pattern, rendering the petitioner No.2 institute without ministerial staff and Class IV staff, thereby virtually paralysing its functioning. The other prayers relate to interim and ad-interim relief. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus : The petitioner No.1 had started the Technical High School some time in the year 1979 and thereafter started the petitioner No.2 institute which is the Minimum Competency Vocational Course (MCVC) in the year 1988. It is not disputed before us that for the petitioner No.2 institute, the order granting approval/ sanction etc. was passed by the authorities. Initially the petitioner No.2 institute was housed in the same premises as that of the other institutes of the petitioner No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 institute came to be shifted to other premises. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner No.2 institute is a grant-in-aid institute with three full time teachers and three full time instructors on grant basis. It has other four staff which are on non-grant basis. By virtue of the impugned action, the 3 respondents have altered the staffing pattern and as a result of which, the petitioner No.2 is deprived of the post of one Clerk and one Class IV employee. 4. The respondents have placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 22.5.2008. By virtue of the said Government Resolution, the staffing pattern in the institutes like those of the petitioners came to be altered. However, even by the aforesaid Government Resolution, the post of Clerk and the post of Class IV employees have not been totally done away with. In fact, all the institutes dependent upon the categories in which they fall, are entitled to the post of Clerk and a Class IV employee. 5. The respondents, in their affidavit-in-reply have contended that the petitioner No.2 institute is a part and parcel of the other institutes run by the petitioner No.1 and, therefore, the institute is clubbed along with the other institutes and accordingly, the staffing pattern is reduced. According to the respondents, the courses run i.e. the MCVC Course run by the petitioner No.2 institute are same and, therefore, they are treated as one institute. We do not see any sanction of law much less any sanction in the Government Resolution, on the basis of which the respondents have taken the action. There is no ground to indicate that the authorities are entitled to club the courses run by these two institutes as one, and accordingly treat them as one institute for the purposes of staffing pattern. Undisputedly, 4 before the petitioner No.2 shifted to its new premises, in the petitioner No.2 institute, post of Clerk and post of Class IV employee had been sanctioned. However, by virtue of the impugned action, the aforesaid staff has been reduced. 6. We have perused the Government Resolution and we do not find that the Government Resolution in any manner authorises the respondents to treat the petitioner No.2 institute along with other institutes of the petitioner No.1 as one institute for the purposes of staffing pattern. The petitioner No.2 institute would certainly be entitled for the staffing pattern as per the Government Resolution dated 22.5.2008. We have, therefore, no hesitation in allowing this petition and quashing the impugned action. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned action is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant staffing pattern to the petitioner No.2 institute as is extended pursuant to the Government Resolution adverted to above. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)