Jitendra Dangal Wagh v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.337 OF 2019 Jintendra s/o Dangal Wagh, Age: 35 years, Occu: Service as Jr. Clerk, R/o. Deopur Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2.

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule 3.

Shri. Ekvira Devi Shaikshanik Mandal, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule, Through its Secretary 4.

Shri. Ekvira Devi Secondary and Higher Secondary High School, Deopur, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule, Through its Headmaster ..RESPONDENTS Mr V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr K. N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE : 14th January, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr Panpatte, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

(2) 2.

A limited grievance is raised in the petition. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is, the petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Peon' in respondent No.4 - School on 17th June, 2003 and was subsequently promoted to the post of 'Junior Clerk'. Respondent No.4 - School submitted proposal to respondent No.2 - Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule to grant approval to the promotion of the petitioner.

3.

It is submitted that the benefits were granted to the similarly circumstanced persons under the Government Resolution dated 4th April, 2018. The petitioner has made a representation to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule on 6th November, 2018, inviting his attention to the facts as well as the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.2960 of 2012.

4.

It is the further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the representation is pending before the Education Officer and though the Government Resolution dated 4th April, 2018 specifies period of eight weeks for decision, till date, no decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner.

(3) 5.

This being a limited grievance of the petitioner, in our opinion, the petition can safely be disposed of by issuing directions and accordingly respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, dated 6th November, 2018, as expeditiously as possible and not later than eight weeks from the date of the order of this Court, needless to state on the merits of the representation.

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. (S. M. GAVHANE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) sjk