SHRI RAHUL HARI DHANJE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) In pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.6.2003 published in daily Deshdoot the petitioner, who is Scheduled Caste candidate, submitted his candidature as an Assistant Teacher. In pursuance to the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was interviewed on 15.6.2003 and came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 25.6.2003. The second respondent had approved the services of the petitioner by its communication dated 30.10.2004. Subsequent thereto, a proposal dated 1.2.2007 came to be forwarded to respondent no.2 for approving the services of the petitioner and other teachers but the said proposal is said to be pending since then.

(3.) In view of the limited grievance made in this petition, we are deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at the stage of admission. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has restricted the relief sought by the petitioner to issuance of directions to respondents for deciding the said proposal dated 1.2.2007.