← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4890/2022rule absolute

Kiran Rajendra Dhangar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2022-05-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.D. Dhanuka,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. G. Mehare4 pages

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 947 WRIT PETITION NO. 4890 OF 2022 Kiran S/o. Rajendra Dhangar, ...PETITIONER Age-25 years, Occu- Service, Peon of Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bahal, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENTS Through its Principal Secretary, Sports and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, Nashik Road, Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Mr. R. I. Wakade, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondent/State AND 949 WRIT PETITION NO. 4979 OF 2022 Samadhan Prakash Borase, ...PETITIONER Age-32 years, Occu-Service, Peon of Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Madhyamik, Vidyalaya, Pohore, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENTS Through its Principal Secretary, Sports and Education Department,

(2) Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, Nashik Road, Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Mr. R. I. Wakade, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondent/State AND 956 WRIT PETITION NO.5023 OF 2022 Rahul Rajendra Pardeshi, ...PETITIONER Age-27 years, Occu-Service, Peon of Madhyamik Vidyalaya Sarve, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENTS Through its Principal Secretary, Sports and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, Nashik Road, Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Mr. R. I. Wakade, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondent/State CORAM:R. D. DHANUKA & S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

(3) DATE:04th May, 2022 JUDGMENT:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

The learned AGP waives service of notice for the respondent/State.

By these three petitions the petitioners have prayed for writ of mandamus against the respondent No.3 Education Officer (Secondary) to decide the proposal made on various dates mentioned in the prayer Clause-B of the petition which are still pending. Statement is accepted.

We accordingly direct the respondent No.3 to decide such pending proposals of these petitioners within six months from today. The order that would be passed by respondent No.3 shall be communicated to the petitioners within one week from date of passing the order. If the order is against the petitioners, the petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate proceeding. If the order is in favour of the petitioners, consequential reliefs sought by the petitioners shall be considered in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any view on the merits of

(4) the representations made by the petitioners. All the contentions and merits are kept open. The writ petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute.

4.

Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.

[S. G. MEHARE, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.] VishalK/wp4890.22.odt