938 cp 51-17 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 938 CONT. PETITION NO. 51 OF 2017 IN WP/9312/2015 SURESH YOSEPH PANDIT VERSUS ASHOK NANABHAU KADUS ... Mr. Chaitnya Dharukar h/f Ms. Dharurkar Vinaya (Muley), Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. S. Wagh h/f Mr. Shelke Shivaji T., Advocate for Respondent …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Date : 19/08/2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The order under contempt indicates that the Education Officer was directed to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 by considering the position of the vacancy prevailing at the time of his appointment as well as the policy of the State Government prevailing at the relevant time. However, learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice the communication dated 03.10.2016 issued by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 3. On perusal of the said communication, it is evident that the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar after considering the order under contempt, opined that no vacant post was available at the time of appointment of Petitioner No. 3 and therefore, VS Maind/ Page|1 2026:BHC-AUG:37438-DB 938 cp 51-17 . refused to grant approval to his appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, has been challenged by Petitioner No. 3 by filing a separate Writ Petition No. 8188 of 2018, which is presently pending. 4. In view of the above, nothing further survives for consideration in the present petition, as Petitioner No.3 has already challenged the rejection of approval to his appointment in the said writ petition. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. 5. Later on, Mr. Chaitnya Dharurkar, learned counsel, holding for Ms. Vinaya Dharurkar, is present. [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE] JUDGE JUDGE VS Maind/ Page|2