Ramkrushna Sadashiv Bagal And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4689 OF 2022 1.

Ramkrushna Sadashiv Bagal, Age: 50 years, Occu. Assistant Teacher, R/o. Z.P. School, Dab, Tal. Akkalkuwa, Dist. Nandurbar.

2.

Dipmala Dilip Patil, Age: 40 years, Occu. Assistant Teacher, R/o. Z.P. School, Walamba-K, Tal. Akkalkuwa, Dist. Nandurbar.

3.

Nita Pundlik Patil, Age: 45 years, Occu. Assistant Teacher, R/o. Z.P. School, Todikund, Tal. Akkalkuwa, Dist. Nandurbar.

4.

Raju Shriram Patil, Age: 46 years, Occu. Assistant Teacher, R/o. Z.P. School, Patilpada Kothli, Tal. Akkalkuwa, Dist. Nandurbar.

5.

Dilip Chandrasing Girase, Age: 48 years, Occu. Assistant Teacher, R/o. Z.P. School, Nipani, Tal. Akkalkuwa, Dist. Nandurbar..Petitioners

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The Chairman, Badli Abhyas Gat and The Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad, Pune.

3.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar.

4.

The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurabar.

..Respondents

(2) ...

Mr. Balaji S. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondents-State. Mrs. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

...

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA & S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATED : 27th APRIL, 2022.

PER COURT:- 1.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2.

Mr. Lokhande, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 waives notice. Mrs. Chaudhari, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 waives notice.

3.

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek an order and direction against respondent no.1 to decide the representations filed by the Union annexed at Exhibit-E to the petition before 30.04.2022 and for other reliefs.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners pressed only prayer Clause (B) at this stage. 5.

Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioners states that, representations has to be decided by Principal Secretary of respondent no.1. 6.

The learned A.G.P. on the other hand states that, in this matter the Principal Secretary

(3) of the State Government is not concerned at all with the representations i.e. made by the petitioners and such representations can be considered by the Chief Executive Officer.

7.

It is for the learned learned Principal Secretary of respondent no.1 to decide whether he is competent to decide such representations or not and if he is competent shall decide the representations on or before 05.05.2022.

8.

It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any views on merits of the representations made by the petitioners.

9.

All contentions of both the parties are kept open.

10.

Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute. No Order as to costs.

11.

Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.

(S. G. MEHARE) (R. D. DHANUKA) JUDGE JUDGE Devendra/April-2022