Pratiksha Uttam Kale v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3442 OF 2017 Seema Madhukar Jamane

...Petitioner

vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3467 OF 2017 Pratiksha Uttam Kale

...Petitioner

vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others

...Respondents

Mr. M.S. Topkar a/w. Ms. Pavitra Mahesh, for the Petitioners Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

DATE :

APRIL 17, 2017 P.C.:

.

Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2.

Since the issue involved in both the Petitions is common, the same are disposed of by this common order. 3.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

1/3

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that in view of Division Bench order dated 17 th September, 2014 in Writ Petition No.676/2014 in the case of Ashok Dinkar Kale v. The State of Maharashtra along with companion matters passed by this Court which was based upon the earlier Division Bench Order dated 12 th September 2012 in Writ Petition No. 5258/2012, Ms. Sandhya Laxman Ghosalkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. along with other connected matters, the present Writ Petitions can be disposed of by directing Respondent No.3 Education Officer to consider the representation/application filed for approval by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3442 of 2017 with effect from 1st July, 2014 and in respect of Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2017 with effect from 1st October, 2014 i.e. the date of their respective appointments and to grant all the related benefits.

5.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioners as also learned AGP appearing for the Respondents, we are disposing the Petitions by directing the Education Officer to consider the representation/application for approval filed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3442 of 2017 2/3

with effect from 1st July, 2014 and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2017 with effect from 1st October, 2014 and take appropriate decision keeping in view the law laid down in the cases of Ashok Kale and Sandhya Ghosalkar (supra).

6.

Both the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

7.

Rule in both the Petitions made absolute accordingly. 8.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.) 3/3