1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3530 OF 2009 1. Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Shekapur, Taluka Kandhar, Dist.Nanded through its President, Shri Sambhajirao s/o Nagobarao Kendre, Age 63 years, Occu.Agri., R/o Shekapur, District Nanded 2. The Head Master, Smt.Gangabai Balak Mandir & Primary School, Kandhar, District Nanded 3. Smt.Pushpatai d/o Sambhajirao Kendre, Age 22 years, Occu.Service, R/o Kandhar, District Nanded .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. The Director of Education (Primary), Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Deputy Director of Education, (Primary), Latur 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.N.Jadhav, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 Shri V.S.Panpatte, Advocate for respondent No.4 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 7th October 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ directing respondents to revive the 8th post of Assistant Teacher in Smt.Gangabai Balak Mandir & Primary School, Kandhar, District Nanded from the academic year 2001-02 and also prays to direct respondents to accord approval/sanction to the appointment of petitioner No.3 as Assistant Teacher in the said school from the academic year 2001-02 and to extend all other consequential benefits etc. The petitioners also pray for directing respondents to grant provisional approval to the appointment of the petitioner No.3. 3. It appears that initially, the sanctioned strength of the school was one Head Master and seven posts of Assistant 3 Teachers. On account of reduction in the strength of the students, one post of Assistant Teacher came to be withdrawn and consequently, the admissible sanctioned strength was 1 Head Master + 6 Assistant Teachers. Thereafter, it appears that the strength of the students was increased and consequently, the Education Officer recommended to the Deputy Director of Education for revival of the 8th post which had been reduced on account of fall in the strength of the students. It appears that repeated proposals came to be addressed to the Education Officer, however, the Deputy Director of Education did not pay any heed to the proposals submitted by the authorities. The non consideration of the aforesaid proposals has impelled the petitioners to file the present petition. 4. It is stated before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since there was an increase in the strength of the students, the petitioner No.3 came to be appointed assuming that the 8th post would be revived by the Deputy Director of Education consequent upon the proposal submitted by the Education Officer. Accordingly, it is prayed in the petition for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner No.3. According to us, since a proposal for revival of the 8th post is still pending consideration with the Deputy Director of Education, the relief of grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner No.3 4 cannot be granted at this stage. Since the proposal is pending with the Deputy Director of Education, we direct the Deputy Director of Education to decide the said proposal, in accordance with law, if pending, within period of four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. The proposal submitted by the petitioner seeking approval/sanction to the appointment of the petitioner No.3 would be decided by the competent authorities after the decision is received from the Deputy Director of Education. The petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the decision rendered by the authorities in respect of the grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner No.3, if the decision is adverse to the interest. 5. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/3530.09wp