Bombay High CourtWP/3862/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Maha. Rajya Prathmik Shikshak Samitee, Yavatmal, Through Its President v. The State Of Maha. Through It Secretary Dept. Of Rural Devp. And Water Conservation And Others

2017-07-07Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun Digambarrao Upadhye2 pages

WP3862-15 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3862/2015 (MAHARASHTRA RAJYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SAMITEE, YAVATMAL VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & 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.S. Chakotkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. M. Naik, A.G.P. for the R-1 to 3.

Shri Dharaskar, Advocate h/f Shri J.Y. Ghurde, counsel for the R-4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATE : JULY 07 , 2017.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to implement the policy of the mutual transfer of the primary teachers who were transferred out of Tahsil place in the year 2011-12 on administrative grounds.

When this writ petition was admitted by the order dated 15.10.2015, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Zilla Parishad had made a statement that mutual transfers would be effected after the surplus teachers are absorbed. It is most likely that the mutual transfers must have been effected. Certain interim orders were again passed by this Court on 04.05.2016. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent no.4 and the interim directions issued by this Court, it is most likely that the grievance of the petitioner must have been redressed. Even if it is not redressed in case of some of the employees, those employees may agitate their grievance individually.

WP3862-15 With these observations and by accepting the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 on 15.10.2015, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE