Shashikant Wamanrao Kakade And ORS. v. The State Of Mah. And ORS.

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1698 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5152 OF 2002 Jayant Ramdas Sonwane and others

...Petitioners

versus The Joint Director, Higher Education, Jalgaon and others

...Respondents

.....

Mr. V.J. Dixit, senior advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1,2, 4 and 5. Mr. A. B. Girase, Advocate for the respondent No.3 .....

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1702 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5153 OF 2002 Shashikant Wamanrao Kakde and others

...Petitioners

versus The State of Maharashtra and others

...Respondents

.....

Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for the respondent No.4 .....

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1703 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5151 OF 2002

-2Mahesh Manohar Manekar and others

...Petitioners

versus The State of Maharashtra and others

...Respondents

.....

Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for the respondent No.6 .....

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1704 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5154 OF 2002 Anilkumar Jagannath Lohar

...Petitioner

versus The State of Maharashtra and others

...Respondents

.....

Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for the respondent No.4 .....

CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

DATED : 7th JANUARY, 2015 P.C. :- 1.

All these petitions are filed by 76 employees of North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, which is added as respondent in these petitions. The petitions were filed because at that time, the services of the petitioners were discontinued, as there was no

-3approval from the Government for payment of salary etc. However, during pendency of these petitions, the Government has sanctioned the posts, which are occupied by the petitioners. Even at the interim stage, the petitioners were protected.

2.

Since now everything is regularized, the petitioners do not want to prosecute these petitions further, as the petitions are now rendered infructuous in view of the subsequent development, which took place during pendency of these petitions. In the light of above circumstances, petitions are disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( A. V. NIRGUDE, J. ) rlj/