1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8047 OF 2010 Karmaveer Pratishthan Ramnagar, Savargaon, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna, Through its Secretary. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director, Maharashtra State Council for Research and Training, Pune. 3. The Principal, District Education and Training, Institute, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ....Respondents. Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8141 OF 2010 Shivchhatrapati Charitable Trust, Through its Secretary, Vijaykumar Dhondiram Sonawane, Age 53 yrs., Occ. Agri., Social Work, R/o. Kautha, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 2. The Director, Maharashtra State Council of Research and Training, 708, Sadashiv Peth, Kumthekar Road, Pune. 3. The Principal, District Education and Training, Institute, OSMANABAD. ....Respondents. Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A. V. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8142 OF 2010 Bhagwan Pratisthan, Chikalthana, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad, Through its Managing Trustee, Vinayak Saluba Wagh, Age 65 yrs., Occu. Agri., Social Work, R/o. Opp. Kada Office, Aurangabad, Dist. AURANGABAD. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director, Maharashtra State Council of Research and Training, 708, Sadashiv Peth, Kumthekar Road, Pune. 3. The Principal, District Education and Training, Institute, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8161 OF 2010 Satyasai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Through its Secretary, Rajendra Kamalnarayan Jaiswal, Age 53 yrs., Occu. Social Work, R/o. Rajkamal, 35, Ulka Nagari, Garkheda, Aurangabad, Dist. AURANGABAD. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director, Maharashtra State Council of Research and Training, 708, Sadashiv Peth, Kumthekar Road, Pune. 3. The Principal, District Education and Training, Institute, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8165 OF 2010 Balaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Shepwadi, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed Through its Secretary, Shri. Rajkishan Kantaprasad Modi, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Social Work, R/o. Guruwar Peth, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ....Petitioner. Versus 4 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director, Maharashtra State Council of Research and Training, 708, Sadashiv Peth, Kumthekar Road, Pune. 3. The Principal, District Education and Training, Institute, Ambajogai, Beed. ....Respondents. Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 15th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seek to withdraw the petitions with further liberty to make appropriate applications before the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petitions filed by them before the Apex Court. 2. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. However, it appears that in view of interim orders passed by this Court in some of the matters by earlier Benches, some students have been admitted in some of the institutions. It could be seen from the orders passed by the Apex Court that the Apex Court has also protected the admissions of the students, which were made pursuant to the 5 interim order passed by the Apex Court. 3. In that view of the matter, we make it clear that the students, who have been already admitted by some of the petitioners pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court, would not be adversely affected by withdrawal of the petitions. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp8047.10