Bhagwat Dadarao Sonawane v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:28521-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 WRIT PETITION NO. 9754 OF 2025 BHAGWAT DADARAO SONAWANE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Irfan D. Maniyar Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.P. Sonpawale A.G.P. for Resp. No.1.

Mr. Suhas P. Shirsat Advocate for Resp. Nos. 2 and 3. ...

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 7th OCTOBER, 2025 ORDER :

1.

Present petition has been filed for following reliefs:- "B) By issuing writ of mandamus, order or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to hold and declare that the petitioner is eligible for the post of Extension Officer (Education) Class-3, Grade-3, by granting permanent promotion in favour of petitioner.

C) By issuing writ of mandamus, order or any other writ, order or direction in the like nature, to direct the respondent Nos.2 to issue appointment order as Extension Officer (Education) Class-3, Grade-3, by granting permanent promotion in favour of petitioner."

2.

It appears that petitioner has made representation to Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. However, the learned Advocate for the petitioner in the true copy there is mistake that representation is to Education Office (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed.

3.

Learned AGP waives notice for respondent No.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Shirsat waives notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Upon instructions from respondent No.3, learned Advocate submits that if the representation is received by respondent No.3, that would be decided within four weeks from today and if no such representation is there addressed to respondent No.3, then the petitioner be granted liberty to make representation to respondent No.3 and that will be considered within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The said statement is taken as an undertaking.

4.

We dispose of the Writ Petition by directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 14th July 2025, if it is addressed to respondent No.3, within a period of FOUR WEEKS from today. If that representation is not addressed to respondent No.3, then the petitioner would be at liberty to make

representation to respondent No.3, within a period of one week from today and thereafter respondent No.3 to decide the same within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of such representation.

[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/OCT25