1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4538 OF 2007 Nitin s/o Balkrishna Pagare, Age-34 years, Occu:Service R/o-Nutan Vasahat, Ambad, Tq-Ambad, Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Collector/Chairman, District Selection Committee, Collector Office, Jalna, 3) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, 4) Pradeepkumar Harishchandra Janbandhu, Age-Major, Occu:Service, R/o- Netradeep Vidyalaya, Motigavhan, Tq. & Dist-Jalna, 5) The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.S.N. Pagare Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Shri.K.G. Salunke Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri.A.A. Khonde Advocate h/f. Shri. M.P. Kale Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. Leave to add Divisional Commissioner as party Respondent. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. This Petition is pending since the year 3 2007 . The Petitioner claims that he being M.Sc. B.Ed., ought to have been given five marks and if five marks were given, the Petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Education Extension Officer. 4. The Respondents filed affidavit in reply. In the submissions of the counsel for Zilla Parishad, the Committee involved in selecting persons, decided in respect of allotment of marks and accordingly marks were allotted and Respondent No.4 was selected and was appointed, who is working since the year 2007. 5. We have perused the record. Committee's order or minutes are not placed before us. Relevant Government Resolutions are also not on record. In the facts of the case, we find that it would be appropriate if the Divisional Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Section 267A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 decides the issue, in case the Petitioner files comprehensive 4 representation/ application before him within four weeks from today. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner would file such representation/ application. 6. In case the Petitioner files comprehensive representation/ application in respect of the grievances made in this Petition, before the Divisional Commissioner; then we direct the Divisional Commissioner to dispose of the said application/ representation, after hearing the concerned parties and going through the record. Needless to mention that the Divisional Commissioner would dispose of the matter by passing a brief reasoned order. The Divisional Commissioner would undergo this process in exercise of powers under Section 267A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. The Divisional Commissioner shall dispose of the matter as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We do not express 5 any opinion on the merits of the matter. All issues are kept open. . Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp4538.07