Govind Shesherao Suryawanshi And Anothers v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

8744.15wp FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ______________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO. 8744 OF 2015 GOVIND SHESHERAO SURYAWANSHI AND ANOTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mrs.S.G. Chincholkar h/f Mr.Chincholkar G.N.

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr.A.G. Magre.

Advocate for Respondent 4 :Mr.Natu Sharad V.

...

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & P.R. BORA, JJ.

Dated: JANUARY 22, 2016 ...

Learned Counsel for the petitioners undertakes to deposit deficit court fees within two weeks from today. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned AGP for respondents /State and learned Counsel for respondent No.4. There is consensus among the Counsel for the parties that this petition can be conveniently disposed of in terms of the order dated 26th November, 2015 in case of Raju Kishanrao Gajbhare and others vs The State of Maharashtra and others - Writ Petition No.10840 of 2014 and in particular, para 6 thereof.

In the light of above, for the reasons which are

8744.15wp assigned in the order dated 26th November, 2015 in case of Raju Kishanrao Gajbhare and others vs The State of Maharashtra and others - Writ Petition No.10840 of 2014, we pass the following order:

So far as prayer clause (C) in the petition is concerned i.e. the respondent no.6 may be directed to accommodate the petitioner on the vacant Class IV posts of Laboratory Attendants in Science College, Nanded, i.e. respondent no.6, which are now receiving grant in aid, are concerned, it would be open for respondent no.6 to consider the said prayer, and in case respondent no.6 is convinced, can prepare a Scheme / Proposal in accordance with the relevant Rules / procedure / guidelines prescribed, and can forward said proposal to respondent nos. 1 to 3. We have not expressed any opinion about merit of such proposed Scheme / Proposal, and it is left open to respondent nos. 1 to 3 to consider the said proposed Scheme / Proposal, which may be submitted by respondent no.

6, so as to accommodate the petitioners on the sanctioned posts receiving grant in aid in respondent no.6 College, in accordance with relevant Rules / Government policy / procedure and take the decision on said proposal. We make it clear that earlier rejection of proposal by respondent nos. 1 to 3 cannot be construed as impediment to respondent nos. 4 to 6 to forward fresh proposal. However, it will be open to respondent nos. 1 to 3 to consider fresh proposal, keeping in view relevant Government Resolution, procedure and the relevant pronouncements of the High Court and the Supreme Court. In view of above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(P.R. BORA, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J) kadam/