← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/366/2013disposed off

Shri. Sanjay Dattatray Tarle v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Director, Vocation, Technical Education And Training And ORS

2016-09-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar3 pages

Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 366 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2838 OF 2015 Shri Sanjay Dattatray Tarle .. Petitioner Vs.

State of Maharashtra and ors.

.. Respondents Mr.Anilkumar Patil, for the Petitioner.

Mr.P.P. Kakade, AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 - State. Mr.Rohan P. Surve, for Respondent No.4.

CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : 07th SEPTEMBER, 2016 P.C. :

.

Parties through their Counsel.

2.

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that petitioner's claim has been favourably recommended by communication dated 13/05/2016 - Exhibit R-VI filed on affidavit by the Joint Director, Vocational Education and Training, Regional Office, Nashik. He submits that in view of 1/3

the aforesaid favourable proposal submitted to the AuthorityPrincipal Secretary, Skill Development and Industrial Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to whom the proposal has been sent be directed to consider and take appropriate decision on it as expeditiously as possible. He also submits that the said Authority be directed to take decision after taking note of the said proposal as also the decision of the School Tribunal dated 23/01/2009.

3.

Mr.Kakade, learned AGP appearing for the State submitted that appropriate decision shall be taken by the said Authority after taking into consideration the proposal dated 13/05/2016 as also order passed by the School Tribunal on 23/01/2009.

4.

In view of aforesaid submissions, we dispose of the Civil Application as also Writ Petition by directing the Principal Secretary, Skill Development and Industrial Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to consider and take appropriate decision 2/3

on the said proposal as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR, J.) 3/3