(1) 12-WP-3022-2016 (Judgment) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3022/2016 Vijay son of Kawaduji Jawade, Aged about 43 Years, Occupation-Service, Assistant Teacher, Nagar Parishad Secondary School and Junior College, Arvi, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1.The Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Arvi, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha. 2.The Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Wardha. 3. The Headmaster, Nagar Parishad Secondary School and Junior College, Arvi, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha. 4.Ku. M.N. Khune, Aged Major, Occupation-Assistant Teacher, Nagar Parishad Secondary School and Junior College, Arvi, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha. ...RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for the Petitioner (s). Mr. S.S. Ghate, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and 3. Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP, for the Respondent No.2 Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:11347-DB (2) 12-WP-3022-2016 (Judgment) CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026. JUDGMENT (PER: ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Ghate, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Mr. A.V. Palshikar, learned AGP, appearing for Respondent No. 2, and Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4. 2. None for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submits that vide order dated 11.02.2013, the Education Officer directed the Management to grant benefits of the 25% quota reserved for Trained Graduate Teachers to Respondent No. 4. The petitioner was declared not eligible on account of the absence of requisite qualification. 4. The argument of the respondents is that the order passed by the Education Officer granting the benefit to Respondent No. 4 has not been challenged, and therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable. 5. As none appears for the petitioner, we have been not apprised of the petitioner’s contention on this point. 6. Nonetheless, considering the fact that the petitioner is not pursuing the cause, it appears that either the petitioner is not interested in doing so or the purpose has been served. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of remedy as is available in law, including approaching the Grievance Committee, if the issue involved still survives. 8. Rule is disposed of in terms of above. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya