← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2243/2016allowed

Shri Gopal Ramdas Kondapakku And ANR. v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Edu. Dept. And ANR.

2016-03-31Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ranjit More.2 pages

vks wp 3610.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3610 OF 2015 Mrs. Vidya Atul Thorat and others .Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and ors ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4132 OF 2015 Mrs. Sankalpa Babu Shinde and anr ..Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and anr ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2241 OF 2016 Tej Narayan Ramlakhan Singh and anr .Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and anr ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2243 OF 2016 Gopal Ramdas Kondapakku and anr .Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2246 OF 2016 Shri Mohammad Zubair Mohammad .Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2247 OF 2016 Mrs. Varsha Prashant Parihar and anr .Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents.

vks wp 3610.doc WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2248 OF 2016 Mrs. Pradeep Kau Mann and anr .Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents.

Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, a/w Mr. Sagar Mane and Mr. M.G. Bagkar, for Petitioners.

Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 31st MARCH, 2016.

P. C. :

1.

Heard Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. M. P. Thakur, learned AGP for the State. 2.

The issue involved in all these petitions is similar to the issue involved in Writ Petition No.2207 of 2016. We have disposed of today the said Writ Petition by passing detailed speaking order. 3.

In that view of the matter, all these petitions are allowed. The impugned orders in all these petitions are quashed and set aside; Respondent No.2 in these petitions is directed to consider afresh the proposal submitted by petitioner No.2 institution, for approval of the appointment of petitioners. Respondent No.2 shall take decision as expeditiously as possible and in any case preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4.

All concerned shall act on the authenticated copy of this order.

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]