Abdul Rehman Abdul Samed v. The State Of Mah.And Others
201-WP-2083-97 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.
OF Abdul Rehman s/o Abdul Samad, Mangrulpir, Dis. Akola -vsThe State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Law & Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri R. A. Haq, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms Tajwar Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ. DATE : October 03, 2022 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was appointed as officiating Peon on temporary basis with the Court of Extra Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur on 13/05/1992. The petitioner sought transfer on mutual basis to the Court at Buldhana. He worked there from 01/12/1993 to 31/05/1994. The petitioner was again re-appointed on 01/06/1994 and he worked till 30/06/1994. For want of a post, the services of the petitioner were not continued from 30/06/1994. On 01/05/1997 an advertisement was issued for making recruitment on the post of Peon with regard to 25 posts. The petitioner made a representation and sought his appointment. Since there was no response to the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition on 16/06/1997.
It appears from the record that while admitting the writ petition a direction was issued to the District Judge, Buldhana to consider the aforesaid representation and if possible
201-WP-2083-97 2/2 accommodate the petitioner. Thereafter there has been no progress in the matter.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not received any instructions from the petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that no further instructions have been issued from the respondents. It appears that with passage of time the grievance of the petitioner now no longer survives. Moreover, it is likely that he has now attained the age of superannuation.
In these facts, the writ petition is disposed of. Rule stands discharged. No costs.
(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.) Asmita ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR 10:21:52