Manjushree Abhimanyu Gaikwad v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ______________________________________________________ 908 WRIT PETITION NO. 4906 OF 2015 MANJUSHREE ABHIMANYU GAIKWAD

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Suryawanshi R.R. AGP for Respondents/State: Mrs.S.G. Chincholkar. Advocate for Respondents : Mr.U.B. Bondar for R/3, Mr.Bhosale Ramdas B. for R/4 and 5 ...

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 01, 2015 ...

It is the case of the petitioner that on 25.6.2013 respondent No.4 published an advertisement in weekly newspaper "Jan Samuday" for recruitment of Shikshan Sevak from reserved category i.e. Scheduled Caste. On 31.6.2013, one teacher namely Nagorao Venkatrao Jadhav stood retired on superannuation and therefore, one post became vacant. On 27.7.2013, the petitioner applied for the said post of Shikshan Sevak and she was selected by the Selection Committee and respondent No.4 issued appointment order on the pay of Rs.6000/- per month. The petitioner joined

the service in respondent No.5's school on 1.8.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that she is serving continuously as Shikshan Sevak from her date of appointment. By way of this petition, petitioner is praying for directions to the respondent No.3 to accord approval to her appointment and also payment of back wages.

The learned Counsel for the respondent / management submits that proposal of the petitioner was forwarded for approval to the respondent No.3 - Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. According to the Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the management, the said proposal is pending before the respondent No.3.

In the circumstances, we direct the respondent No.3 to decide the proposal of the petitioner forwarded by the management for approval, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from today. It is needless to observe that the concerned Education Officer shall decide the said proposal, in accordance with the policy of the State Government, relevant Rules and the record maintained by the institution as also office of respondent No.3. The Counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that respondents No.4 and 5

will extend full co-operation to the respondent No.3 in taking final decision on the proposal already forwarded.

With these observations, petition stands disposed of.

(A.M.BADAR, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J) kadam/