1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1371 OF 2008 Appasaheb Limbraj Kale .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. .. Respondents Shri J. M. Murkute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Respondents No. 5 and 6. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER [ PER A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. The petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal way back in the year 2005 and 2006 in favour of the respondents No. 5 and 6. The management has chosen not to file any writ petition. The present petitioner has no concern with the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, as the present 2 petitioner is no way affected. This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be the President of School Education Committee. The Statute does not recognize any School Education Committee, however, recognizes School Committee as an appointing authority in regard to the staff to be appointed in the School. The petitioner tried to submit that the present petition has been filed by him as a nominee of the non-teaching staff of the school, which is one of the post in the School Committee. 02. According to the petitioner, he being in the minority, the management, so also the Education Officer are not paying any heed to the representation made by him. The present petition, in our view, is wholly misconceived. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to move representation to the Education Officer voicing the grievance in regard to non adherence of the Rules in regard to reservation. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 2010