B.R.GAVAI,J. - (1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
(2.) The Petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by communication dated 7 July 2015 vide which, the proposal for grant of approval for appointment of Petitioner No.1 came to be rejected. The Petition, in so far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, stands withdrawn and therefore, we are only concerned with this issue with regard to Petitioner No. 1.
(3.) The Petitioner came to be appointed as "Shikshan Sevak" on 2 May 2011. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner possesses the necessary qualification. The Respondent Management had sent a proposal to Respondent No.1 for grant of approval of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. However, as the same was not decided, the Petitioner was required to approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1984 of 2015. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 8 May 2015, allowed the Petition and directed the Education Officer Respondent No. 1 to consider the said proposal.;