1 WP 1278/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1278 OF 2008 Vandana D/o Gangadhar Gadhe. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. ----- Shri. Amol N Kakade, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. Umakant K Patil Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1. Shri. V.G. Salgare, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri. G.V. Patil, holding for Shri. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 7th JULY 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Learned counsel Shri. Kakade appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1994 – 95 as Peon on probation. She worked in that capacity for 2 2 WP 1278/2008 years. The post of peon was abolished. When the post was revived the petitioner made representation but the management did not pay heed to the same. In the meanwhile the earlier management was taken over by some other management. The respondent No.3, according to the petitioner, was appointed in her place. 3) This writ petition is filed in the year 2008 seeking directions to quash and set aside the approval granted to the services of the respondent No.3 as Peon. The petitioner further seeks directions to appoint her as Peon. 4) Affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4. We have perused the same. Respondents No.4 and 5 in their affidavit- in-reply state in para 5 as under: “5.I say and submit that, she was appointed in the said school i.e. Ravisut Marathi Primary School, purely on temporary basis on 10-10-1994 and she has worked only for a period of one year i.e. upto October 1995, for a period she has received the total 3 WP 1278/2008 salary or payment from Aurangabad D.C.C. Bank, Aurangabad. Thereafter, she never returned to the said school and now after near about period of 13 years, she has filed present Writ Petition for seeking appointment as a peon.” 5) The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that he has been working since last 9 years. The learned counsel appearing for the Management states that this petition is filed at a very belated stage. The petitioner had worked only for a year before 13 years. The petitioner did not work even for two years. She was not appointed on probation. 6) We have perused the communication made by the petitioner to the Education Officer dated 5-2-2002 (Exhibit “F” to the petition) in which the petitioner herself stated that she was appointed in the school for the period from 10-10-1994 to 9-10-1996 and it was informed by the Head Master on 9-11-1996 that due to reduction in strength of students the Zilla 4 WP 1278/2008 Parishad had terminated the petitioner in the year 1995 itself. 7) Considering the conflicting stands taken by the contesting parties we do no find that, this is an appropriate case for entertaining in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is seeking relief at the belated stage. The petitioner had worked for a year or so in the school in the year 1994 – 95 with the earlier management. We do not find strong ground with the petitioner now to seek quashment of the approval granted to the respondent No.3 who is working since last more than 9 years. We therefore decline to entertain the petition. 8) The writ petition is dismissed. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.1297.05