Miss. Nalini D/O Manikrao Jadhav v. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur And 2 Others

wp7337.14 1/2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 7337 OF 2014 Ms Nalini D/o Manikarao Jadhav -vsThe Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Y.D.Shukla, counsel for the petitioner.

Mrs. Indira Bodade, counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr.A.D.Dangore, counsel for the respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.

DATE : 22.06.2015.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges her transfer from Swargiya Shrawanji Watkar Primary Vidyalaya to Tapasya Vidya Mandir, both run by the respondent No.2Society. The petitioner has challenged her transfer mainly on the ground that the recognition of Tapasya Vidya Mandir may be cancelled in future as an enquiry in regard to the wrongful grant of recognition to certain institutions was conducted and Tapasya Vidya Mandir was one of them. It is stated that the salary of the employees working in Tapasya Vidya Mandir was not released by the respondents for some time.

Mrs. Bodade, the learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad, states that an enquiry was conducted in respect of the grant of recognition to certain schools including Tapasya Vidya Mandir and at present, the Zilla Parishad is not

wp7337.14 2/2 contemplating de-recognition of the said school. It is stated that the unpaid salary of the employees in Tapasya Vidya Mandir has been released and the grievance made by the petitioner in that regard would not survive.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would not have any objection to join Tapasya Vidya Mandir. It is stated that the petitioner was not ready for joining in Tapasya Vidya Mandir, as she was under an apprehension that her salary would not be paid on the de-recognition of the said school. It is stated that the petitioner would join in Tapasya Vidya Mandir within a period of one week.

As the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE