← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/7729/2019dismissedrule discharged

Syadwad Education Society, Ansing Through Secretary Adityakumar S/O Hukumchand Walali And Others v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mumbai And Others

2020-01-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravi K. Deshpande,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Amit B. Borkar2 pages

1 908. WP 7729-2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7729/2019 Syadwad Education Society, Ansing Through its Secretary, Shri Adityakumar Hukumchand Walali and others Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others.

........................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders Court' s or Judge'

s order of directions and Registrar'

s orders .............................................................................................................................................. Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.Y. Deopujari, GP for respondent no. 1 and 3 CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 21st January, 2020.

The challenge in this petition is to the approval granted by the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati to the appointment of respondent No.6-Raksha Shyamsundar Jakhotia on the post of Shikshan Sewak with effect from 26.06.2018.

The contention is that there are no students, no posts and therefore, the approval granted is wrong and also that due procedure for selection of appointment has not been followed. It is for the respondent Deputy Director of Education to assess and find out whether there are post in existence on the basis of the students strength in the school.

We do not find any reason to interfere in the matter for grant of approval. If the appointment is not in accordance with law, this aspect is also required to be

2 908. WP 7729-2019.odt looked into by the Deputy Director of Education. If there is dispute between the Management, the appointment of the respondent No. 6 would obviously be the subject to the result of this petition.

Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE JPP