← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4248/2018disposed offdismissed for default

Sajid Mohammed Yunus And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2019-01-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun M. Dhavale2 pages

(1) 1051-wp-4248-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1051 WRIT PETITION NO.4248 OF 2018 SAJID MOHAMMED YUNUS AND OTHERS ..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS ...

Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondents-State. Mr. N. N. Desale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 7.

Mr. Vishnu Madan Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

...

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATED : 18th JANUARY, 2019.

PER COURT:- 1.

Mr.

Bolkar, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the proposal submitted by the management seeking approval to the appointment of petitioners is not decided by the Education Officer on the ground that there is dispute in the management. The learned counsel submits that petitioners have been appointed by following due selection process. The respondent-institution is minority institution.

2.

The Education Officer has to consider the requirements as given in the Government Resolution dated 12.09.2017.

3.

Mr.

Desale, learned counsel for

(2) 1051-wp-4248-2018 respondents supports the order.

4.

The Education Officer has to consider whether proper selection process has been followed. In case, of minority institution, as per Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S Rules, the right is given to the minority institution to fill some post of their choice. Be that as it may, if Government Resolution dated 12.09.2017 prescribed the requirements to be adhered to for giving approval, reference can be had to Clause 9 of the Government Resolution dated 12.09.2017.

5.

Considering the above, the Education Officer shall consider the Government Resolution dated 12.09.2017 and pass appropriate order on the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of petitioners. The same shall be done expeditiously and preferably within a period of four (04) months. The petitioner may present himself before the Education Officer. Till the proposal is decided, no adverse action be taken against petitioners. 6.

Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(A. M. DHAVALE) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE Devendra/January-19