Gajanan Vikramrao Kale And Another v. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana And Another

1 22WP3892.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3892/2017 Gajanan Vikramrao Kale and another.

Vs.

The Education Officer (Secondary) and another. ............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders Court' s or Judge'

s order of directions and Registrar'

s orders .............................................................................................................................................. Shri S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Shri Y.P. Kaslikar, Advocate h/f. P. S. Patil for respondent No.2. Shri S.S.Shinge, Advocate for the Intervenor. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

DATED : 18th NOVEMBER, 2019.

.

On 28.06.2019 we passed an order as under :

"Heard.

2.

Petitioners are having order of reinstatement in their favour, and therefore, they are required to be absorbed in the service. It is the claim of petitioners that three posts are lying vacant in which they can be accommodated. However, the stand of management is that it is running five schools and teachers working in other schools are rendered surplus and they are required to be adjusted against said posts.

2 22WP3892.17.odt 3.

We direct the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, to look into the grievances of petitioners. We also direct the Education Officer to call all the parties and resolve the controversy, after hearing them, within a period of two months from today. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.

No costs."

In response to aforesaid order, the Education Officer has decided the claim regarding grant of approval and it is rejected. The petitioners are, therefore, at liberty to challenge the order by filing the separate petition.

2.

This petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. All issues are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE RGurnule