JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE A.P., J.:—Heard Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Khubalkar, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Gaikee, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. 2.Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition for the petitioner No. 1 Sunil Raut, as he is already appointed as "Shikshan Sevak". 4.The petitioner No. 2 is the resident of District Akola. The petitioner came to be selected by the District Selection Committee for the post of "Shikshan Sevak". After selection of the petitioner No. 2, the respondent No. 2 recommended the name of the petitioner No. 2 for appointment to the respondent No. 3 Zilla Parishad, Washim. The petitioner approached the respondents No. 3 and 4 viz. Zilla Parishad, Washim and Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Washim respectively for an appointment in the post of "Shikshan Sevak". The respondents No. 3 and 4 declined to appoint the petitioner solely for the reason that the petitioner was not resident of District Washim. A communication to that effect was served on the petitioner on 11-3-2003 issued by the respondent No. 4 Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim. It is this order passed by the respondent No. 4, which is challenged in the instant petition. 5.The point involved in the instant petition is no longer res integra and is concluded by the judgment of this Court reported in 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 931 (Sic) (Ramdas Arjun Jape others v. State of Maharashtra others)1. This Court has categorically held that while appointing Shikshan Sevaks there shall be no restrictions of being a resident of the same District but once so appointed, there could be no transfer in the district of his/her choice during the period of three years. Pursuant to the pronouncement made by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the State Government has issued a Resolution dated 21st October, 2002 reiteration in para 8 thereof that while granting an appointment as "Shikshan Sevak", there shall be no restriction in regard to the candidates residence in the district. In view of the judgment of this Court, so also Government Resolution, the Education Officer is wholly unjustified in refusing to grant an appointment to the petitioner No. 2 solely for the reason that the petitioner is not resident of Washim district. In view of the judgment of this Court, so also Government Resolution, the Education Officer is wholly unjustified in refusing to grant an appointment to the petitioner No. 2 solely for the reason that the petitioner is not resident of Washim district. 6.The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State concedes to this position in view of the categorical statement contained in the Government Resolution dated 21st October, 2002. The learned Counsel appearing for Zilla Parishad agrees to abide by the orders passed by this Court. 7.In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad (Primary) Washim, is quashed and set aside. We direct the respondents No. 2 and 4 to grant an appointment to the petitioner No. 2, who is selected by the District Selection Committee for the post of "Shikshan Sevak". Compliance be made within four weeks. 8.Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----