← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/6023/2010disposed offdismissed for default

Mandakini Murlidhar Karale v. The State Of Mahrashtra And ORS

2017-04-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO.6023 OF 2010 Mandakini Murlidhar Karale ... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others.

... Respondents.

...

Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.R.L.Kute, Mr.P.S."Dighe, advocates for the petitioner.

Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.

Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

...

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6044 OF 2010 Usha Sadashiv Dalimbkar ... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others.

... Respondents.

...

Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior advocate holding for Mr.V.R.Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.

Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

...

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10475 OF 2010 Hema W/o Jayant Jadhav ... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others.

... Respondents.

...

Mr.P.B.Shirsath, advocate holding for Mr.S.V.Suryawanshi, advocte for the petitioner. Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.

Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL,JJ.

Date : 10.04.2017.

PER COURT :

1.

Motion is made for speaking to minutes in respect of Judgment dated 4.4.2017. Para 8(a) i.e. "(a) The Respondent authority shall accord approval to the appointment of the petitioners from the year 1998-99 to 2003 and the services during the said period shall be counted for the purpose of continuity"

be substituted by following sub-para "(a) The respondent authority shall accord approval to the appointment of the petitioners in

Writ Petition No.6023/2010 and Writ Petition No.10475/2010 from the year 1998-99 to 2003 and of petitioner in Writ Petition No.6044/2010 from the year 1997-98 to 2003 and the services during the said period shall be counted for the purpose of continuity."

2.

In para 8(b) in line No.4 instead of "period i.e. 1998-99 to 2003 though approval is" the same be corrected as "period i.e. 1999-2000 to 2003 though approval is"

Necessary corrections be carried out in the judgment. Motion disposed of.

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp60232010