Sachin Kashinath Kamble v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

prod-61 & 72-wp-11226-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11226 OF 2016 (Producation Board Dt. 28/09/2016) Sachin Kashinath Kamble

...Petitioner

vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITINO NO.11264 OF 2016(Sr.No.72) (Producation Board Dt. 28/09/2016) Vaibhav Maruti Ghatge and Another

...Petitioners

vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others

...Respondents

Mr. C.G. Patil, for the Petitioners Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

DATE :

SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 P.C.:

.

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

Parties through their counsel.

3.

The grievance of the Petitioners is that Respondent No. 2 before whom the proposals sent by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for approval of the Petitioners' appointment is pending has not decided the same as yet.

Vishal Parekar 1/2

prod-61 & 72-wp-11226-2016 4.

On the other hand the learned AGP submits that the Petitioners have not filed copy of the resolution but only filed a copy of the letter sent by the institute to Respondent No. 2. 5.

Be that as it may, we are of the view that it is the duty of Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the proposal received from the institute as expeditiously as possible. Having not done so, we are disposing these Petitions by directing Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the proposals sent along with covering letter as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Petitioners to supply a copy of entire proposal to Respondent No. 2 along with the copy of this order. 6.

Till the Petitioners' claim for approval is considered and decided, the status quo as it exists today in respect of post occupied by the Petitioners shall be maintained.

7.

The Petitions stand disposed of as such.

(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.) Vishal Parekar 2/2