← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/5801/2018disposed offdismissed for default

Arun Anna Shinde v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2018-06-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil K. Kotwal3 pages

(1) WP No.5741/2018 + 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5741 OF 2018 Vikas Ashok Rathod.

Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others.

Respondents.

*** Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.T. Bhagat, A.G.P. for the State.

*** WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5801 OF 2018 Arun s/o Anna Shinde.

Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others.

Respondents.

*** Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.T. Bhagat, A.G.P. for the State.

*** WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5802 OF 2018 Prakash s/o Dattatray Bagul.

Petitioners.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others.

Respondents.

(2) WP No.5741/2018 + 3 *** Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the State.

*** WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5813 OF 2018 Arun s/o Suryabhan Dhanak.

Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others.

Respondents.

*** Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for the State.

*** CORAM :

S.V. GANGAPURWALA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL,JJ.

Dated :

14th June, 2018.

PER COURT :- .

Leave to add institution as a party. Notice to add party. Learned Counsel waives notice for added party. Learned A.G.P. accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2.

It is submitted that the proposal was filed by the Management seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the vacant posts from unaided to added. The said proposals are

(3) WP No.5741/2018 + 3 returned back on the ground of deficiencies. Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel submits that in fact the deficiencies did not exist and the proposal was complete in all respects.

2.

Be that as it may, the proposals have been returned back to the Management. The Management shall resubmit the proposals with all relevant documents as is stated in the letter of the Education Officer returning the proposals. The Education Officer, on receiving the proposals afresh, shall decide the said proposals on its own merits in accordance with law and policy expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of proposals. The petitioners are entitled to present themselves before the Education Officer.

3.

The Writ Petitions accordingly disposed of. No costs. ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE vdd/