JUDGMENT :

Neela Gokhale, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties.

2. This is a second round of litigation. An Assistant Teacher is compelled to run from pillar to post to seek confirmation of her services as a full-time teacher and spend time in litigation, which time and effort would be better spent in the classroom with her students.

3. In the earlier proceedings, this Court had set aside the order passed by the Respondent-Education Department, rejecting approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as a full-time teacher from the time of her appointment as such and had directed the Department to decide the proposal de novo, allowing the Management to produce documents required by it. The Petitioner and the Management produced necessary documents substantiating their claims. Nevertheless, the Department maintained the order of refusal. It is this order which the Petitioner assails in the present proceedings.

4. The Petitioner is a teacher employed in the 5th Respondent- School run by the 4th Respondent-Management. The Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the Director and Deputy Director of Education of the 1st Respondent- State respectively.

5.