1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.989 OF 2000 Shikshan Mandal Goregaon & Ors. .. Petitioners. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Rajeev Patil i/by Ms.Seema Sarnaik for the Petitioners. Ms.S.M.Dandekar, AGP for the Respondets. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 27.10.1999 passed by the Education Inspector, Greater Bombay, Western Division, declining to approve the appointment of Smt.Ghadi to the post of clerk. Smt.Ghadi was appointed to the post of clerk by an order dated 4.5.1999. A proposal was submitted by the School for approval to the appointment of Smt.Ghadi. That proposal has been rejected by an order dated 27.10.1999 relying mainly on the contents of the Government Resolution dated 19.6.1996. The learned counsel for the petitioners have now placed before us the Government Resolution dated 28.10.2004 which shows that the Government Resolution dated 19.6.1996 has been drastically modified. Under Government Resolution dated 19.6.1996 for the purpose of working out 2 reservation for backward class section in the recognized private schools, all the non teaching posts were clubbed together, but now under the new Government Resolution dated 28.10.2004 that policy has been given a go-bye and even the non-teaching posts have been divided into various categories. 2. The petitioner has in this petition challenged the validity of the 1996 Government Resolution. In view of the change in the policy of the Government which is reflected in the Government Resolution dated 28.10.2004 it is not necessary for us to consider whether the policy contained in the Government Resolution dated 19.6.1996 was valid or invalid. 3. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, the following order would meet the ends of justice: ORDER “The order dated 27.10.1999, a copy of which is at Exhibit ‘D-2’ to the petition, is set aside. A proposal submitted by the petitioner for approval of the appointment of Smt.Ghadi is remitted back to the Education Inspector, Gr.Bombay, Western Division, for de-novo consideration, in accordance with law, specially in view of the Government Resolution dated 28.10.2004. The Education Inspector, before making any order on the proposal of the petitioner, shall grant to the petitioner an opportunity of being 3 heard, and dispose of the said proposal by a speaking order. All contentions available to both sides are kept open. In case the order of Education Inspector goes against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to adopt such remedy as may be available to the petitioner. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs.” (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)