Mukesh Balasaheb Rajemane v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 52-wp3736 and 3737.full.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3736 OF 2016 Mukesh Balasaheb Rajemane, Age : 30 years, Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher (Secondary), r/o. At Post Karepur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur ..Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others ..Respondents -- Mr.S.C.Swami, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.S.Badakh, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5 Mr.H.P.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent no.6 -- WRIT PETITION NO.3737 OF 2016 Santosh s/o. Venkati Parit, Age : 25 years, Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher (Secondary), r/o. Janwal, Tq. Chakur Dist. Latur ..Petitioner Vs.

2 52-wp3736 and 3737.full.odt The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others ..Respondents -- Mr.S.C.Swami, Advocate for petitioner Mr.R.V.Virdhe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5 -- WRIT PETITION NO.3758 OF 2016 Sangmeshwar Vaijnath Kusnure, Age : 25 years, Occ. Service as Hostel Superintendent, r/o. Janwal, Tq. Chakur Dist. Latur ..Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others ..Respondents -- Mr.S.C.Swami, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5

3 52-wp3736 and 3737.full.odt CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : JULY 15, 2016 PER COURT :

Heard.

2.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on various posts after advertising the posts and following the due procedure. It is submitted that even initially, approval was granted by the respondent/authority to the appointments of the petitioners for three years. However, the proposals submitted by the respondent/Management to respondent no.3 for approval to the continuation of the services of the petitioners, have been simply kept pending.

3.

The learned AGP submits that appointments of the petitioners were not in accordance with the relevant Government policy.

4 52-wp3736 and 3737.full.odt 4.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGP for the respondents - State and the learned Counsel for the respondents - Management, we are of the opinion that since the proposals for approval to continuation of services of the petitioners are pending with respondent no.2, respondent no.2 can be directed to decide the said proposals on their own merits. In view of the documents produced on record, we cannot countenance the stand taken by respondent no.2 in the reply that the appointments of the petitioners were not in accordance with the procedure.

5.

In that view of the matter, we direct respondent no.2 to take decision on the pending proposals for approval to the continuation of the services of the petitioners on their own merits, as expeditiously as possible, however, within a period of eight weeks from today. While considering the pending proposals, respondent no.2

5 52-wp3736 and 3737.full.odt shall take into consideration the initial approval granted to the appointments of the petitioners. If the decision so taken is in favour of the petitioners, appropriate steps be expedited for payments of the salary of the petitioners since July, 2015.

6.

With these directions, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.

7.

The parties to act on authenticated copies of this order.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] kbp