← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/6437/2015disposed offdismissed for default

Dnyanoba Mahadu Mule v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

2015-06-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.K. Jadhav3 pages

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6437 OF 2015.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Court's or Judge's orders Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & V.K.JADHAV,JJ.

Date : 29.06.2015.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

Mr.Sakolkar, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was selected by duly constituted Section Committee as Physical Instructor in the year 2005, however, was not given appointment order. The petitioner is working in the said Institution since 2001. As approval is not given, the petitioner is relieved. According to the learned counsel, the Grievance Committee has also not considered the contentions of the petitioner. When the petitioner is selected as against the sanctioned post and the workload is also available, the Respondents were duty bound to give appointment letter. There is record to show that the petitioner has worked even

after 2005.

3.

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also the order passed by the Grievance Committee. It has been observed by the Grievance Committee that from the record it does not appear that the petitioner ever worked with the Respondent Institution after 2008. Subsequent advertisements were also issued by the Institution for filling in the post but petitioner at no material point of time took objection. For all these years, the petitioner did not approach any forum for redressal of his grievance. At least the petitioner could have objected to the advertisement issued in the year 2010 to fill in the posts.

4.

Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, no error has been committed by the Grievance Committee while negativing the claim of the petitioner. The petition as such can not be considered.

5.

The Writ Petition as such is disposed of. No costs. (V.K.JADHAV,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.29.06.2015.

asp/office/wp6437.15