Ku. Neeta Amritlal Shahu, (Mrs. Neeta Vinod Gupta), Nagpur v. Shri Dipendra Lokhande, The Education Officer (Primary) Z. P. Nagpur And 2 Others

04.01.cp.346.16

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 346/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4627/2014 (D) (Ku.Neeta Amrutlal Shahu vs. Shri dipendra Lokhande and two others ) .............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .............................................................................................................................................. Mr. B.G.Kuilkarni, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.K.Raulkar, Advocate for Respondent 1 mr. S.Zia Quazi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 4th January, 2017 Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner is practically redressed as he has been appointed from 1.6.2016. However because of earlier service rendered by her from 1.7.2006 till termination on 11.12.2014, the later appointment could not have been as Shikshan Sevak (Teaching Assistant). As the earlier service was satisfactory probation, if any, was already over and hence appointment from 1.6.2016 needed to be as an Assistant Teacher.

Shri Quazi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 (employer) does not dispute this. He submits that inadvertently, while issuing appointment order, the word 'Shikshan Sevak' has been employed. He submits that within two weeks, that error will be rectified and an appointment order mentioning the petitioner as 'Assistant Teacher' will be issued, Accordingly, we permit the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to rectify the error. After the error is rectified, necessary proposal

04.01.cp.346.16 seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher shall be forwarded to the Office of the Education officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, within next period of two weeks. The respondent no.1 shall consider that proposal in accordance with law, within next four weeks. Shri Kulakrni points out that in paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 4th March 2015 in Writ Petition No.4627/2014 there is a direction to the Education Officer to grant an approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The same shall be kept in mind.

With these directions, we dispose of the Contempt Petition. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE sahare