1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6544 OF 2008 GANESH SOMSING RATHOD VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ... Shri R.R.Imale, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri D.V.Tele, AGP for respondents 1 to 4 and Shri V.P.Golewar, Advocate for respondent 5. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. Dated : October 21, 2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Perused the prayer clauses. On behalf of respondents 1 to 4, affidavit in reply has been filed, duly sworn by Shri Bharati, Social Welfare Officer - II, dated 20.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted rejoinder to the said affidavit in reply on 23.2.2010. Unusually, after this rejoinder on behalf of respondents an affidavit in reply is filed by the same officer i.e. Shri Bharati, affirmed on 23.3.2010. 2 4. Shri Golewar, learned counsel for repsondent No.5 states that with leave of the Court he has been joined as party respondent to the petition Respondent No.5 is the management concerned, who is running a Primary Ashram School, Anand Nagar, Ambajogai. Shri Golewar, on instructions from respondent No.5 states that affidavit in reply is not filed in response to the writ petition for the reason that respondent No.5 virtually is supporting the grievance of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, makes a statement that upto 2005, the petitioner has received a salary as an untrained teacher and he has no grievance on that count. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have seen communication at page No.46 (Exhibit "F") dated 27.1.2006, addressed to respondent No.5 by respondent No.4, informing that the petitioner is an untrained teacher and therefore, proposal for approval in relation to the petitioner has been rejected. It appears that the petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1997 and his qualification, as per this communication, was B.A., B.P.Ed. In the second affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, a statement is made in paragraph No.3 that the petitioner holds the qualification as B.A., B.P.Ed. on the date of filing of the petition. However, at the time of his initial appointment, he was holding H.S.C. qualification and therefore, approval was granted to he petitioner as untrained teacher on the temporary basis for the academic years 2001-02 to 2004-05. Thereafter, in paragraph No.4 a contention is raised regarding rejection of the 3 proposal of the petitioner We have considered paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of this reply affidavit also. 6. On behalf of repsondent No.5, a statement is made that like the petitioner, proposal of some other teachers was also rejected by respondent No.4. Those teachers have approached respondent No.3 and their grievances have been sorted out and they are getting the salary. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out the representation submitted by petitioner to respondents 3 and 4 on 1.8.2008 (Exhibit "G" to this petition). This representation is still pending with respondents 3 and 4. It is to be decided by respondent No.3. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6437 of 2007 and 1154 of 2008. Copy of the said judgment is on record of this writ petition at Exhibit "L". 9. In this view of the matter and in the light of judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6437 of 2007 and 1154 of 2008. (Exhibit "L" to this petition), Writ Petition stands disposed of with direction to respondent No.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner (Exhibit "G" to this petition), after hearing the petitioner, on/or before 30.11.2010 on its own merits and in accordance with the provisions of law. The 4 petitioner shall remain present before respondent no.3 on 29.10.2010 at 11.00 a.m. 10. Rule made partly absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. ( SHRIHARI P.DAVARE J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) ... akl