Disposed

Kuber Maruti Mane and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2006WP/442/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding appointment against reserved seats, the High Court of Bombay observed that the previous order directing continuation of the petitioners remains effective. The petition was disposed of by continuing the said order.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged with no order as to costs and the order of continuation of petitioners is continued.

Kuber Maruti Mane and Anr. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.442 OF 2004

¶4

 Kuber M. Mane & Anr. ..Petitioners.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

---

¶8

 Mr. S. S. Pakale for the Petitioners.
 Mr. V.P. Malwankar, AGP for Respondent No.1.
 Mr. P.P. Chavan for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶9

 -----

¶10

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND
 Dr.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,JJ.

¶11

DATED : 06TH FEBRUARY, 2006.
P.C.:

¶12

 1. By order dated 18.10.2004, as the petitioners

¶13

 were appointed against reserved seats, the learned Bench
 of this court directed that the petitioners be continued
 till the reserved category candidates are duly selected.
 In fact, after that order, really nothing survives in

¶14

 this petition and petition can be disposed of by
 continuing the said order.

¶15

 2. The petitioners claim against the post of
 Central Heads (Kendra Pramukhs). The appointments to
 these posts are from the trained graduate primary
 teachers/ assistant graduate teachers from the reserved

¶16

 -: 2 :-

¶17

 category as per the seniority. At the relevant time,

¶18

 from the reserved seats there were no candidates
 available and consequently, the petitioners were
 appointed in the said posts. In other words, the

¶19

 petitioners were appointed till such time, the reserved
 candidates become available. The moment the reserved
 candidates are available, the petitioners will have to
 vacate the posts for those candidates. It is however,
 made clear that if the vacancies so arise for the open
 category candidates, the petitioners will be considered

¶20

 for those vacancies as per the seniority list.

¶21

 3. With the above observations, the petition stands
 disposed of. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.

¶22

 06.02.2006 (F.I.Rebello,J)

¶23

 (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud,J)

Kuber Maruti Mane and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuber Maruti Mane and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvodaya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Manikchand Motilal Kataria and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Ors. Vs M/S.Deshmukh Builders Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Godavari Manar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs the Nanded District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Nabhik Sahkari Pat Sanstha Mumbai Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sayli Shashikant Haldankar Vs the Chairman, Shri Bhairav Seva Samiti and Ors.