← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3019/2019disposed offdismissed for default

Bhartiya Gramin Vikas Sanstha Through Secretary Raju Sahebrao Funde v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2019-03-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. M. Gavhane2 pages

3019.19wp (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3019 OF 2019 Bhartiya Gramin Vikas Sanstha Through its Secretary, Dr. Raju Sahebrao Funde Age 36 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/o Nandur (Ghat)m Tal.Kaij District Beed.

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary for Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.

The Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Maharashtra State Mumbai 3.

The Commissioner Social Welfare Department Maharashtra State, Mumbai 4.

The Director, V.J.N.T., O.B.C. and S.B.C.

Social Welfare Department Maharashtra State.

Pune-1 5.

The Regional Deputy Commissioner Social Welfare Department, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad 6.

The Assistant Commissioner, District Social Welfare Office, Beed.

..RESPONDENTS Mr S. S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr S. S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents

3019.19wp (2) CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE : 7th March, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr Thombre, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

Mr Thombre, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the order dated 6th December, 2018, passed by this Court in a bunch of petitions, which is placed on record at Exh.'C' to submit that the present petitioner is identically circumstanced with the institute, which was the petitioner before this Court and as the issue is set at rest, the State Government cannot give discriminatory treatment to the present petitioner. 3.

On perusal of the documents placed on record and the order of this Court dated 6th December, 2018, we find considerable merits in the submission of Mr Thombre, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) and disposed of accordingly.

(S. M. GAVHANE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) sjk