Bombay High CourtWP/2826/2003dispossed offdismiss for default

Ku.Vaishali D/O Dinkarrao Patil v. The Dy.Director Of Vocational Edn.Andtraining And 2ors

2016-02-05Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar2 pages

0502wp2826.03.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2826/2003 Ku. Vaishali d/o Dinkarrao Patil ...Versus...

The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Regional Officer, Amravati 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 N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner Ms Tajwar Khan, AGP for respondent no.1 Shri A.R. Sambre, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 05.02.2016 By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.1 to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the academic session 2000-01 in the respondent no.3 - College.

It appears that the respondent no.1 had refused the approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that there was a backlog and the petitioner was not specially qualified to teach the MCVC course. Though this writ petition is admitted, no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, during the pendency of the writ petition.

Shri Saboo, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has not received any instructions from the petitioner

0502wp2826.03.odt in the said matter and the petitioner in a somewhat similar Writ Petition No.1499/2003 has informed the Counsel that the petitioner in the present case has resigned.

In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition and hence, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar