{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4878 OF 2009 1. Venkat Balaji Gutte 2. Subhash Digambar Ratho 3. Santosh Baliram Chavan 4. Ulhas Lalsingh Ratho Respondents No.1 to 4 R/o Bhojaji Ashram Shala Yedshi-Tanda, Tq-Kalamnuri Dist-Hingoli 5. Gajanan Vitthal Todkar 6. Raosaheb Kondbarao Borkar 7. Sandipt Ramrao Paradkar 8. Santosh Anandrao Jadhav Respondents No.5 to 8 R/o Vasantrao Naik Secondary Ashram School Waranga Phata Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai {2} 2. The Special District Social Welfare Officer, Hingoli 3. The Maharashtra Magaswarga Seva Sangh Yedshi, Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hongoli Through its President Yogiraj Rathod R/o Yedshi, Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli 4. The Head Master, Bhojaji Ashram School Yedshi-Tanda, Tq-Kalamnuri Dist-Hingoli 5. The Head Master Vasantrao Naik Seconodary Ashram School, Waranga Phata, Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.R.Shaikh, Advocate for petitioners Mr.V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for respondent No.3 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 2nd September 2009 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. {3} 2. Petitioners, by this petition, pray for directing the respondents to decide the applications of the petitioners dated 06.07.2009 and to grant approval to the appointments of the petitioners for the period prayed for in the said applications. 3. It appears that the petitioners claimed to have been appointed by respondent management on various posts w.e.f. 23.12.2008 till 30.04.2010. Services of the petitioners, as per the appointment orders, which at annexed at Exhibit-B collectively, were for the aforesaid period only and were temporary in nature. A proposal came to be submitted by respondent Management to respondent No.2 seeking approval to the appointments of the petitioners. It also appears that the appointments came to be granted to the petitioners for a limited period i.e. from the date of their appointments from 23.12.2008 till 30.04.2010 only. The petitioners, therefore, in this petition, contend that since they have been appointed till 30.04.2010 and are still in service, respondent No.2 ought to have granted approval to their appointments till the end of the period of their employment. Respondent Management, in its affidavit, has denied that the petitioners are continuing in service and claimed that the petitioners have not been appointed in accordance with law on account of dispute in the management. 4. Prima facie, we do not see any merit in the contention of respondent No.2 that the approval till 30.04.2009 came to be {4} granted only on account of interest of the students. The petitioners claim to be in employment even as on today and in the light of that, therefore, according to us it would be appropriate if respondent No.2 decides the question of grant of approval to the petitioners till 30.04.2010 afresh, after hearing the petitioners and the management. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, we are impelled to issue such directions to respondent No.2 of hearing the petitioners and management on account of several disputed questions of facts, which are raised in the pleadings of the parties. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition by directing respondent No.2 to decide the question of grant of approval to the appointments of the petitioners till 30.04.2010, afresh after hearing the petitioners and the management. This exercise is to be carried out by respondent No.2 within a period of 6 weeks from today. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Copy of this order duly authenticated be provided to the learned counsel for petitioners to act upon. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp4878-09