Disposed

Dhanlal Basant Bhoi and Anr. v. Zilla Parishad Jalgaonthrough Chief Executive Officer Jalgaon and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2010WP/5282/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a promotion order superseding their claims. Respondents affirmed the obtained promotion was fraudulent (wrong category) and would be reversed, making the petition obsolete. The court disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of on the view that administrative action against the fraudulently promoted employee had rendered the petition obsolete.

Dhanlal Basant Bhoi and Anr. Vs Zilla… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5282 OF 2010

¶4

Dhanlal s/o. Basant Bhoi, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Service, presently working as Trained Graduate Teacher in Primary School, Manegaon, Taluka : Muktainagar, District : Jalgaon.

¶5

Jagannath s/o. Kishan Gadilohar (Lohar), Age : 43 years, Occupation : Service, presently working as Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Parsade, Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioners.

¶6

versus

¶7

Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, through its Chief Executive Officer, Jalgaon.

¶8

The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.

¶9

Shri Deepak Chabulal Sonawane, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, presently working as Centre Incharge, Primary School, run by Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, at Adawad, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents.

¶10

(2)

¶11

Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. M.S. Sonawane Patil, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent no.3.

¶14

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER 2010

¶16

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) :

¶17

The petitioners have filed the present petition, challenging the order of promotion issued by respondent nos.1 and 2, to respondent no.3, by superseding the claim of the petitioners.

¶18

An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 / Zilla Parishad. In the said affidavit, it is categorically stated that the promotion given to the respondent no.3 has been wrongly given and that the respondent no.3 has played a fraud with the Zilla Parishad, thereby showing himself from NT(C) category, whereas in fact, he is from NT(B) category. It is further stated that the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad has already initiated a process of reversion of

¶19

(3)

¶20

respondent no.3. It has further been stated that the claim of the petitioners, who claim from NT(B) category, would be considered in accordance with the seniority list.

¶21

In that view of the matter, the petition has served its purpose and nothing is required to be adjudicated.

¶22

In the light of the statements made by the respondent / Zilla Parishad, in the affidavit in reply, the petition is disposed of. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.

¶23

( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

bgp/wp5282

Dhanlal Basant Bhoi and Anr. v. Zilla Parishad Jalgaonthrough Chief Executive Officer Jalgaon and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanlal Basant Bhoi and Anr. v. Zilla Parishad Jalgaonthrough Chief Executive Officer Jalgaon 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

Shahuraj Baliram Tawase Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hanuman Sakhram Dangat and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ramchandra Madhukar Joshi

Navnath Baliram Sonwane Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shamsunder Dattatraya Bharde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Hemant Transport Co. through Proprietor and Ors. Vs the Union of India through Its Chairman Railway Board New Delhi and Ors.