Sandip Dattatray Puslekar v. The State Of Maharashtra Thru Gp High Court And ORS

1/3 pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 3810 OF 2019 Sandip Dattatray Puslekar ..Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..Respondents Ms. Rushita Jain for petitioner.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2 and 5 State. CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, CJ. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.

MARCH 19, 2019.

P.C.

1.

The petitioner claims to be hundred percent visually challenged. He had applied to the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Nashik, for appointment in the year 2017, but he could not get any reply. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is regularly

2/3 visiting the Government Hospital at Nashik and trying to meet the concerned officer, but so far no positive reply is received. Therefore, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is present in the court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a Suit was prepared by the petitioner to be filed in the Civil Court, Nashik but the same has not been presented. Copy of the said Suit is annexed to the petition.

3.

Considering the submissions advanced, we find that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would advise the petitioner in respect of the rights of the petitioner under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 so that the petitioner may decide to participate in the recruitment drive which is undertaken by various agencies from time to time. It is for the concerned

3/3 department, in accordance with the policy of the State Government, to decide as to whether any employment of temporary nature or on contract basis, strictly in accordance with the scheme, is to be undertaken.

4.

Petition stands disposed of.

N. M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE