(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5157 OF 2010 1. Bhagirath Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, At Post : Chinchkhed, Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded, Through its Secretary (Niraj s/o. Deorao Tatewar). 2. Raja Bhagirath Vidyalaya, At Chinchkhed, Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded, Through its Head Master. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Taluka and District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Sanjay Kolhare, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 19TH OCTOBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the respondent no.2, dated 25th February 2010, thereby reducing the teaching staff admissible to the petitioner no.2 / school for the academic session 2009-10. 2. Mr. Sanjay Kolhare, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without following due procedure. 3. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it is stated that the State Government has framed a policy and has prepared a software for determining the sanctioned strength admissible to the schools. It is stated that as per the said software, the strength of sanctioned staff would be worked out. It is also stated that while working out the sanctioned strength of petitioner no.2 / school, the Head Master of petitioner no.2 / school was personally present. (3) 4. The statement made on affidavit, that the sanctioned strength of petitioner no.2 / school was prepared in the presence of the Head Master, is not disputed by filing an affidavit by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5157