Tulshidas Abhiman Lade And Others v. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Rural Development Deptt., Mumbai And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5560 OF 2015 Tulshidas Abhiman Lade and ors ..vs..

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and ors ....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ....................................................................................................................................................... Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.S. Khobragade, counsel for R-2.

Shri A.Y. Kapgate, counsel for R-3.

Mrs.A.R. Taiwade, AGP for R-1.

CORAM

: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 2, 2016.

Heard.

We find that copies of option at Annexure-III, produced on record by Tulshidas Abhiman Lade, Devidas Baliram Dongarwar, Sanjiv Manohar Meshram, Ashwin Manohar Raut, Pradip Janardhan Badole, Kumari Archana Anand Goswami, and Anil Raoji Shende, could not have been typed from xerox copies shown to this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners.

Our attention is drawn to orders dated 17.9.2013 in Writ Petition No.6079 of 2012 and 29.4.2014 in Writ Petition No.3028 of 2013 and connected matters passed by this Court to urge that as .....2/-

there was dispute about genuineness of such option forms, this Court permitted verification to be undertaken by the concerned Chief Executive Officer. In present, we find that forms are not certified to be true copies except the form of Anil Raoji Shende.

Learned counsel Shri A.Y. Kapgate has pointed out that 24.4.1999 was fourth Saturday and 25.4.1999 was Sunday. Three of these option forms appear to be submitted on fourth Saturday or Sunday. Similarly, if options were submitted in the year 1999, the petitioners do not clearly disclose the date on which the petitioners got knowledge that their names were not included in the list of teachers who have submitted options. After year 1999, they have not pointed out any representation submitted at their instance for action on their option forms.

In this situation, we are not inclined to intervene in writ jurisdiction.

With liberty to the petitioners to take such other steps as are open to them in law, we dispose of the writ petition. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE !! BRW !!

.....3/-

C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that this Order/Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Order.

Uploaded by : Bhushan R.Wankhede.

Uploaded on : -02/08/2016 (Personal Assistant) ...../-