Bombay High CourtWP/1667/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Abhinay S/O. Khushal Dhoble v. State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Education And Sports Mantralaya, Mumbai And Others

2016-06-20Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi1 pages

1/1 wp1667.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1667 OF 2016 Abhinay s/o Khushal Dhoble -vsState of Maharashtra, thr.its Secretary, Deptt.of Education and Sports and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. P. P. Thakre, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N. R. Rode, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. V.S.Dhobe, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 20.06.2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Education Officer (Secondary), dated 08/01/2016, directing the termination of the excess Shikshan Sevaks, including the petitioner. By an amendment, the petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent No.4, terminating the services of the petitioner from the respondent No.5-School.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Education Officer (Secondary) has withdrawn the impugned order. It is stated that the Management had terminated the services of the petitioner only in view of the impugned order passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) and since the Education Officer (Secondary) has withdrawn the impugned order, during the pendency of the writ petition, the consequential order passed by the respondent No.4 is liable to be set aside. Shri Dhobe, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, fairly states that if the Education Officer (Secondary) has withdrawn the impugned order, there is no hurdle in reinstating the petitioner in service.

In view of the statements recorded herein above, we dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the order of the respondent No.4-Management.

Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE