Partly allowed

Ramesh Raghunath Mahalinge v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2009WP/1335/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders rejecting his appointment as a Junior Clerk. The school management undertook to issue absorption orders within a week. Petition dismissed against one respondent; quashed orders against others and petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 3.10.2008 and 11.10.2008; school management issued undertaking to absorb petitioner within one week.

Ramesh Raghunath Mahalinge Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1335 OF 2009

¶5

Ramesh s/o Raghunath Mahalinge,
Age : 41 years, Occ.Nil,
C/o Burud Galli, Vishnu Nagar,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. State of Maharashtra School Education Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai Through its Secretary

¶9

2. Marathwada Shikshan Sanstha, Nanded, Through its President Dr. Wadekar Building, Near Shivaji Chowk, Nanded

¶10

3. Rajshri Shahu Vidyalaya, [Through its Head Master] Vasant Nagar, Nanded

¶11

4. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded

¶12

5. Mr B.R. Aglave, Occu.Peon, Rajshri Shahu Vidyalaya, Vasant Nagar, Nanded ..RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr P.M. Nagargoje, Advocate holding for Mr R.J.
Godbole for the petitioner;

¶14

¶15

Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 4;
Mr R.B. Narwade, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3;
Mr G.P. Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.5.

¶16

CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ.

¶17

 DATE :28th JULY, 2009

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.]

¶19

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned Counsel for the parties this
petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶20

2.At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner
states that the petitioner does not press for the
reliefs prayed for at prayer clause (D) and (E) to the
petition.

¶21

3.By virtue of the orders dated 3.10.2008 and
11.10.2008 issued by respondents no.2 & 3, the
respondents no.2 & 3 had expressed their
disinclination to absorb the petitioner as Junior
Clerk in the said school. The petitioner has
accordingly filed this petition.

¶22

4.On notice being issued to the respondents,
respondents no.2 & 3 have filed their affidavit in
reply. In the affidavit in reply at paragraph 9 it is
stated that the respondents no.2 & 3, pursuant to the
directions of the Education Officer (respondent no.4),
had absorbed three persons in their institution and

¶23

¶24

were ready to comply with the directions of respondent
no.4 in respect of absorption of the petitioner. The
learned Counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 states that
necessary orders in respect of absorption of the
petitioner as Junior Clerk would be issued by
respondents no.2 & 3 within one week from today. We
accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to
the Court. Since no relief is claimed against
respondent no.5, this petition stands dismissed in
respect of prayer clause (D) and (E) to the petition.
We allow this petition and quash and set aside the
impugnedorders/lettersdated3.10.2008and
11.10.2008.

¶25

5.This petition is accordingly partly allowed and
Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above
with no order as to costs.

¶26

[ A.V. POTDAR, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ]

¶27

amj/wp1335.09

¶28

Ramesh Raghunath Mahalinge v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Raghunath Mahalinge 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

Narhari Bhujangrao Choudhari Vs Zilla Parishad Parbhani and Ors.

Mahadeo Kondiba Shinde Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dr Layeeq Ur Rehman Mazhar Ali Khan Vs Abdul Hussain Chairman Raj Education and Charitable Trust and Ors.

Dyaneshwar Govind Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gajanan Madhavrao Aghav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajendra Govindrao Sakalkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.