The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition regarding the petitioner's appointment as a project officer. The court held that once the appointment was granted, it could not be re-called, leaving nothing further for the petition to survive.
The writ petition was disposed of with no further order necessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1720 OF 1999
Dattatraya Tatyaba Dhanavade ..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
-----
Mr.V.B.Rajure for Petitioner
Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for Respondents
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO &
S.P. KUKDAY, JJ.
DATE: 21ST APRIL, 2005.
P.C.
. On 5th February, 2003 pursuant to the
directions of this Court on 29th June, 1994 the
Respondents were directed to consider the case of
the Petitioner for appointment against project
affected persons. The Petitioner’s case was
considered and Petitioner was given letter of
appointment on 3rd December, 1999.
. Once the Petitioner has been given
appointment by the Respondents the Petitioner would
continue to be in employment. The Petitioner’s
appointment cannot now be re-called.
. In the light of that nothing further
survives in this Petition, which is accordingly
disposed of.
(F.I.REBELLO,J.)
2
(S.P. KUKDAY,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the revival of employment appointment requires any further adjudication.
Dattatraya Tatyaba Dhanavade
The State of Maharashtra
F.I. REBELLO
S.P. KUKDAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court