Ku. Damyanti D/O Ramraoji Bhongade v. The Director Of Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad (Mpsc), Mumbai And Others

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2193/2016 (Ku. Damyanti D/o Ramraoji Bhongade vs. The Director of Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad and others ) .............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .............................................................................................................................................. Mr.P. S. Sahare, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.A.Madiwale,Asst.Govt.Pleader for respondent no.1 Ms.Aarti Singh Adv.h/for Mr.P.D.Meghe Advocate for Respondent nos.2 and 3.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 8th August, 2016 Heard.

The only prayer made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is for a direction against the respondent no.2-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha not to act upon the seniority list, published on 9.4.2015.

The petitioner was appointed as a Resource Person in Zilla Parishad, Wardha, for a term of six months. The appointment of the petitioner was renewed from time to time but only for a term of six months. As per the new seniority list prepared by the Zilla Parishad, the petitioner is required to be transferred to Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner is totally blind and in view of the disability suffered by the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner should be retained in Zilla Parishad, Wardha.

Ms. Aarti Singh h/for Mr.P.D. Meghe, the learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that due to the disability suffered by the petitioner's husband, the respondent nos. 2 and 3, by taking a humanitarian view in the matter, have sent a proposal for retaining the petitioner at Wardha till the expirty of the term of her agreement and/or further agreements, if she is again appointed, to the State Government, for consideration. It is stated that if the State Government accepts the proposal, the respondents nos.2 and 3 would retain the petitioner at Wardha.

Mr. A.A.Madiwale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 states on instructions from the State Project Director vide communication dated 6th August, 2016 that, as a special case, the petitioner could be retained at Wardha on a fixed term of six months each, on contractual basis only.

In view of the statements made on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

By accepting the statements made on behalf of the respondents, that would be binding on the respondents, we dispose of the Writ Petition, with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE sahare

C E R T I F I C A T E "

and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order." Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare P.S.

Uploaded on: 10.08.2016.