Jayaji Sahebrao Bhosale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 936-wp-2369-17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2369 OF 2017 Jayaji Sahebrao Bhosale ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents ....

Mr. S. G. Munde, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for respondent-State Mr. Pathan Zareef Khan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 8 ....

CORAM :PRASANNA B. VARALE AND R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2020 PER COURT :- .

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 8.

2.

The petition is filed with a prayer seeking direction to respondent no.5 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner on 29.06.2016. A direction is also sought to respondent No.3 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner on 14.09.2016 within a stipulated period. By prayer clause "C", challenge is raised to an order dated 14.11.2016 and ultimately, it is prayed to quash and set aside the said order.

2 936-wp-2369-17.doc 2.

On perusal of the documents placed on record, it is revealed that the order dated 24.11.2016 is placed on record at Exh."J" and the petitioner seems to be referring to this order by a typographical error in prayer clause (C) as an order dated 14.11.2016. By this order dated 24.11.2016, one Smt. Joshi was brought back to the post of Head Master in a Zilla Parishad Primary school at Pisadevi. It seems that this order disturbed the position of petitioner, who was working as Head Master at Gharegaon Pimpri primary school and the representation was filed to transfer the petitioner at Pisadevi. 3.

Mr. Pathan Zareef Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 8, submits that during the pendency of petition, the petitioner was transferred. It is submitted by the learned counsel that though the petitioner had claimed his transfer at Pisadevi, he had already joined the school at Gharegaon Pimpri and is working there.

4.

As the petitioner is now working at Gharegaon Pimpri, the grievance of the petitioner, now, does not survive. We, therefore, see no reason to keep the petition pending in this Court. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. ] SMS