1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4077 OF 2009 1. Dnyaneshwar s/o Jagannath Patil, Age 38 years, Occu.Service, Presently working as Assistant Teacher, In the School run by Nilkantheshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon 2. Rajendra Suresh Patil, Age 30 years, Occu.Service, Presently working as Assistant Teacher, In the school run by Nilkanthshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon 3. Jamnadas Gopinchand Patil, Age 64 years, Occu.Service, Presently working as Assistant Teacher, In the school run by Nilkanthshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon 4. Rajendra Raman Patil, Age 33 years, Occu.Service, Presently working as Assistant Teacher In the school run by Nilkanthshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Director of Education, (Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik 2 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon 5. Nilkanthshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chawalkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon through its President .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioners Shri K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 Respondent No.5 served CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 26th March 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The limited grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that their proposals submitted in the year 2000 and dated 9.11.2003 have not been decided by the respondent No.4 Education Officer. The petitioners, therefore, urge for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. However, since the proposals are pending consideration, according to us, the petitioners are not entitled for the said relief. The interest of justice would be sub served by directing the respondents to decide the proposals of the petitioners, if pending, in accordance with law. 3 3. We accordingly allow this petition and direct respondent No. 4 to decide the proposals of the petitioners submitted in the year 2000 and dated 9.11.2003, if pending, in accordance with law within eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. The necessity of submitting the said two proposals arose on account of the appointment of the petitioners on 15.11.2000, initially as Shikshan Sevaks and thereafter their confirmation in service as Assistant Teachers on 9.11.2003. The said two proposals seek the approval to their appointments are said to be pending. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/4077.2009wp)