Amol Bhagwanrao Bayas And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

WP No.6791/22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 910 WRIT PETITION NO.6791 OF 2022 AMOL BHAGWANRAO BAYAS AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Shaikh M.A. Jahagirdar h/f. Mr. V.Y. Patil AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.G. Sangle ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.

DATED : JULY 27, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

The petitioners have put forth prayer clauses 'B' and 'C' as under :- B) To quash and set aside the impugned Government Resolution foHk'kk@2020@iz-dz630@foTkkHktk &2 dated 23-03-2022 to the extent of direction therein for absorption of the petitioners in another Higher Secondary Ashram School within the State, by issuing writ of certiorari or any other writ or any other order;

C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, the respondents be directed not to initiate any action relating to absorption of the petitioners in any other Higher Secondary Ashram Schools as per the impugned Government Resolution foHk'kk@2020@iz-dz-630@foTkkHktk &2 dated 23-032022;

2.

This petition was heard for quite some time. On perusing the order dated 24.2.2022 delivered by this Court at the Principal Seat in Writ Petition no. 4456/2022 filed by Vinayak Baburao Rajmane

WP No.6791/22 and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., we noticed that in the said case, there was an approval dated 11.12.2019 in favour of the petitioners.

3.

After carefully perusing the record before us, we realise that the appointment of these two petitioners were never approved. Infact, in an earlier round before this Court, a direction was issued that their case for approval may be considered on merits. It is conceded by the petitioners that the approval was turned down and, as on today, they have no approval. They have also not challenged the refusal of the approval.

4.

The Government Resolution dated 23.3.2022 and more particularly, paragraph no. 3 would indicate that as there is an increase in the strength of teachers to be deployed in the Secondary Ashram School and Junior Ashram College, these two petitioners were granted approval as a one time measure and therefore, are juniors to the teachers who have been approved. They were liable to be declared surplus and the State decided to absorb them. 5.

Considering the above position, we express our disinclination. 6.

The learned advocate for the petitioners submits, on instructions, that the petitioners desire to withdraw this petition. 7.

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] SSC/