{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3345 OF 2009 Satish Raghunathrao Shinde R/o Ashti, Tq-Partur, Dist-Jalna PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. The Head Maser, Lalbahadur Shastri Secondary & Higher Secondary Vidyalaya, Ashti, Tq-Partur, Dist-Jalna 4. The President / Secretary Marathwada Sarvodaya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Partur Taluka-Partur, Dist-Jalna RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.N.Kakade, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatage, AGP for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr.M.S.Taur, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 28th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : {2} 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. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to grant permanent approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant with continuity in service and back wages. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the proposal dated 24.02.2009 submitted by respondent No.4 and to grant permanent approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in respondent No.3 school on 05.11.1998. It further appears that by resolution dated 30.06.2002, respondent management resolved to submit the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the academic year 2002-03. Similar resolution for the next academic year also came to be passed on 14.11.2003. Respondent No.2, initially granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the academic years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03. Thereafter, it appears that the appointment of the petitioner has not been approved by respondent No.2, though the petitioner is working in the said institute without any break. Respondent management, therefore, submitted a proposal to respondent No.2 on 24.02.2009 seeking grant of permanent approval to the appointment of the petitioner, since the petitioner had been working as a Laboratory Assistant in the respondent No.3 school {3} from 01.07.1998. Undisputedly, the said proposal of the management seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner is pending consideration with respondent No.2. 4. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has been working in the institute for the last 10 years and for the last 7 years has been working without approval and the proposal thereof is pending, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct respondent No.2 to decide the proposal submitted by the management on 24.02.2009 seeking grant of permanent approval to the appointment of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks form today. In the event respondent No.2 comes to a conclusion that he does not have the necessary jurisdiction to consider the grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 shall remit the said proposal to the authority competent to decide the same. The entire exercise to be carried out within 4 weeks from today with the order being communicated to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp3345-09