Mahatma Gandhi Centennial Sindhu High School, Nagpur, Thr. Its Principal And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education And Sports Dept., Mumbai And Another

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 119 OF 2022 PETITIONER S :-

1. Mahatma Gandhi Centennial Sindhu High School, K.C.Bajaj Marg, Jaripatka, Nagpur-440014, through its Principal.

2. Sindhu Education Society, through its President a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as also a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 having its Office at K.C.Bajaj Marg, Jaripatka, Nagpur 440 014.

3. Smt.Chhaya Mohit Kewalramani, aged major, occupation service, resident of Flat no. 202, B Wing, Hitsh Palace, opposite Headquarter Restaurant, Ring Road, Jaripatka, Nagpur 440014.

4. Ms. Khushboo Anil Bajaj, Aged major, Occupation Service, resident of Block No.314, behind IndusInd Bank , Jaripatka, Nagpur.

5. Smt. Karishma Kapil Duhilani, aged major, occupation service, resident of Block no.53/A, near Mahatma Gandhi High School, Jaripatka, Nagpur.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :-

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education and Sports

2/3 Department, Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400 032.

2. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, having its office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Aksya A.Naik, counsel for petitioners.

Mr.A.M.Kadukar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : 10.01.

.

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.) 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2, who appears by waiving notice for these respondents.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3.

In view of limited prayer made in this petition, regarding expeditious decision on the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, this writ petition can

3/3 be allowed partly in terms of prayer clause (A) and so by partly allowing this petition, it is directed that the proposal sent to the respondent No.2 seeking approval to the appointment of petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 under the cover of the letter dated 11.10.2019 shall be decided by respondent No.2 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two months from the date of the receipt of the order. Rule in the above terms. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Signed By:KAVITA PRAVIN TAYADE P. A.