Ravindra Shrihari Amborkar And 2 Others v. State Of Maharashtra,And 3 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1129/2005 Ravindra Shrihari Amborkar (Deleted) Shyamrao Hiraman Deshmukh (Deleted) Narayan Urkuda Kawadghare ...Versus...

State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATE : 03.10.2016 By this petition, the petitioners have sought a direction against the respondents to take necessary steps to absorb the services of the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions of the Ashram School Code.

During the pendency of the writ petition, a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 that they are not desirous of pressing the writ petition and the writ petition was, therefore, disposed of in respect of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, as not pressed. Only the petitioner no.3 continued to prosecute the writ petition after the said order was passed on 18.10.2006. Since the Counsel for the petitioner no.3 is elevated as the Hon'ble Judge of this Court, a notice was sought to be served on the petitioner no.3 for engagement of another Counsel.

Though the notice is duly served on the petitioner no.3, as per the office note, none appears on behalf of the petitioner no.3. It is most likely that the petitioner no.3 is also not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition as the petitioner no.3 was appointed temporarily and the services of the petitioner were terminated even before he filed the present writ petition. In the aforesaid set of facts, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar

C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order.

Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 04/10/2016