Vikas Annasaheb Roham v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

{1} wp296619.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2966 OF 2019 Vikas s/o Annasaheb Roham Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.C.V.Dharurkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.V.N.Patil Jadhav, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Chandrakant Jadhav, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.Alok Sharma, advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ.

DATE : 24th April, 2019.

P.C. :

Heard Mr.Dharurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP appearing for Respondents No.1 and 2. Notice was issued by this Court on 01.03.2019. A limited grievance is raised in the petitioner. The petitioner, who had completed basic qualification so as to stake claim for the post of Staff Nurse from the State of Karnataka, was under an apprehension that merely because the petitioner completed the course from the State of Karnataka, he may not be considered by the respondent-authorities.

The learned AGP placed before us a copy of the notification dated 05th April, 2019. The same is taken on record and marked "X" for notification. The notification opens with the statement that in view of the orders of the High Court and Administrative Tribunal, the document verification in respect of those candidates, who are possessing domicile

{2} wp296619.odt certificate certifying that they are residents of State of Maharashtra, but have completed their basic qualification like G.N.M. Nursing, Basic B.Sc. Nursing, M.Sc. Nursing from the State of Karnataka, is undertaken. The notification also refers to the time table for verification of documents from 23.04.2019 to 24.04.2019 between 11.00 am and 2.00 pm at the office of Director of Medical Education and Research, Government Dental College Building, Saint George's Hospital compound, Mumbai. The notification also refers to categorisation of the candidates for scrutiny and verification of the documents.

In view of this notification, in our opinion, grievance raised by the petitioner is being taken care of. The petitioner may not carry any apprehension in view of this notification which makes the position more than clear. Considering the notification, we can safely say that the purpose of the petitioner in approaching this Court is duly served and his grievance stands redressed. As such, nothing remains in the petition for consideration.

Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2.

NITIN W. SAMBRE PRASANNA B. VARALE JUDGE JUDGE adb