Shriram Education Society And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Edu. Dept. And ORS

RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2024.05.16 12:45:33 +0530 RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rrpillai WRIT PETITION NO. 16375 OF 2023 Shriram Education Society and Another ...

Petitioners Vs.

The State of Maharashtra through ...

Respondents the Secretary School Education Department and Others Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar a/w. Ms. Sonali G. Sase i/b. Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam for the Petitioners.

Mr. A. I. Patel, Additional GP a/w. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Saurabh Pakale a/w. Mr. Nilesh Desai for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE :

10th MAY 2024 P.C.

1.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is passed on an appeal filed by respondent no. 3. However, the Deputy Director of Education - respondent no. 2 has recorded observations and issued directions with regard to other employees who are not party to the proceeding and had never filed 1/3

any appeal. He further on instructions submits that the directions in the impugned order so far as respondent no. 3 is concerned, the petitioners have no objection to implement the same. 2.

He further submits that the petitioners are aggrieved with the general directions issued concerning the other employees. A perusal of impugned order indicates that respondent no. 2 issued general directions regarding other employees who never filed any appeal. Hence, the adjudication had to be restricted only towards the claim of respondent no. 3. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the directions in the impugned order so far as respondent no. 3 is concerned shall be implemented, the petition can be disposed of with a clarification that the impugned directions are restricted only to respondent no. 3. 3.

Hence, it is clarified that the observations and directions in the impugned order are restricted qua the respondent no. 3. 4.

In view of the aforesaid clarification, learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions seeks leave to withdraw the petition. Leave granted.

2/3

5.

Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the clarification as recorded above.

[GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3