2 The present petition has been filed for following relief :
"(C) By issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondent No.1 to 4 be directed to pay the regular monthly salary of the petitioner from April, 2019 onwards as a trained teacher which is wrongly withheld by the respondent No.4 and for that purpose necessary orders be passed."
3 The factual matrix leading to the petition are that - petitioner had passed S.S.C. examination in 1990. Respondent No.5 school was recognized by the Government from the academic year 1994-95. Respondent No.5 had invited applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher. The school was initially on non grant-in-aid basis and no 3 WP_10117_2021_Jd trained candidate was made available to respondent No.5, therefore, petitioner came to be appointed on the post of untrained teacher from 16.06.1994 on temporary basis. Later on she was appointed on the permanent post, which was clear and vacant. Respondent No.5 school receiving 100 % grant-in-aid in the year 2000. The school authorities had then forwarded the proposal of the petitioner and other staff for sanction of staff approval as well as grant of individual approval. The Education Officer granted the approval to the appointment of the petitioner as untrained teacher by letter dated 31.03.2003. Respondent No.1 had introduced a scheme of postal D.Ed. course for untrained primary teachers, those who are already working in the primary recognized school. Various Government Resolutions were issued from time to time on the said subject. As per the said Government Resolution the school should be recognized and the appointment of untrained teacher should be according to the staffing pattern. They should not be in excess and in continuation of service as well as as per the roaster. The said Government Resolution further states that the proposal for approval should have been sent at least once to the Regional Officer before 01.11.1997. In view of the Government Resolution the petitioner fulfilled all the required conditions for admission to the postal D.Ed. course. Selection letter was issued to her for the year 2000-01. According to the petitioner, a condition was there that she should attend the class on the given 4 WP_10117_2021_Jd centre. She had attended the said course on the given centre and had completed the course. She was relieved from time to time by the school authorities for attending the said course as per the directions issued by respondent No.2. Even respondent No.2 had issued relieving letter after the completion of said training. She appeared for the examination but could not pass the 2nd Year Examination of the said course. The petitioner was surprised to receive show cause notice dated 26.07.2005 from respondent No.2 asking her as to why her admission for postal D.Ed. course should not be cancelled. She had immediately replied the same through her Head Master on 22.08.2005. No communication was thereafter received from respondent No.2. The petitioner was discharging her duties and was in continuous employment. However, inquiry proceedings were initiated by respondent No.2 in respect of alleged irregularities in the admission in the said postal D.Ed. course. Still she was allowed to appear for the examination which was held in 2006 in respect of 2 nd Year. However, the result was not declared. Respondent No.5 school had given representation on 28.01.2009 that report of the inquiry has not been communicated to it. It was then communicated by respondent No.2 by letter dated 31.12.2005, thereby cancelling the admission given to the petitioner and others. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.910 of 2010 to challenge the said order/communication dated 31.12.2005. The said writ petition was 5 WP_10117_2021_Jd dismissed by this Court by granting liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition with proper documents and explanation. Therefore, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6872 of 2012. By order dated 01.10.2014 the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 31.12.2005 was quashed and set aside and the consequential order was passed. Respondent No.4 had granted approval for the continuation of the petitioner in the pay scale from 01.06.2005. Since the postal D.Ed. course itself was cancelled by this Court, the Principal of the college had forwarded the petitioner's examination form to the Commissioner, Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune for D.T.Ed. Examination to be held between November-December, 2018. The petitioner says that she was not allowed to appear for the 2 nd Year postal D.Ed. Examination from 2015 till 2018. Thereafter her name was recommended in June, 2019 for the said postal D.Ed. course and she cleared the said examination. Thereafter the proposal was submitted to respondent No.4 to release her salary grants. There was absolutely no fault on her part, but when she has now cleared every hurdle, she is entitled to receive the salary grants. Hence, the writ petition.