pvr 1 WP3818-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3818 OF 2010 Smt.Patil Savita Sadashiv, (Mrs.Shelavale Savita Madhukar) ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.A.M.Joshi, for Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.V.A.Madane, for Respondent no.4. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 7th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Respondent no.2 in the affidavit filed in this petition stated that if the proposal is submitted by Respondent no.4, the Respondent no.2 is willing to consider it in accordance with law. In paragraph 8 of the Affidavit, Respondent no.2 stated thus:- pvr 2 WP3818-10 8.I say that as the letter dated 25.06.2009 which is at Exhibit- L to the Petition was addressed by Respondent No.3 who is not the Competent Authority to address such letter, the Respondent no.2 did not consider the same. I say that if Respondent no.2 receives letter from the Respondent no.4 who is the Competent Authority, requesting to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner as Assistant Teacher on B.Ed. Pay Scale, the same will be considered in accordance with law and as per the staffing pattern sanctioned by Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no.4 states that the Head Master will submit proposal within a period of four weeks from today. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that on receiving proposal from the Head Master, the Respondent no.2 shall consider it in accordance with law and pass order thereon as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the pvr 3 WP3818-10 proposal. The statement is accepted. In view of this statement, the petition is permitted to be withdrawn. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)