Allowed

Ajinaht Mahadeo Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2010WP/7960/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a pending appeal regarding another employee's removal does not create an impediment for approving the petitioner's appointment. The warden directed the Education Officer to consider the proposal and decide within three months, subject to the final decision in the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.3 to consider the proposal and Respondent No.2 to decide on the petitioner's appointment within three months, subject to the final decision on the pending appeal No.83/2009.

Ajinaht Mahadeo Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

{1}

¶2

wp796010.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7960 OF 2010

¶5

Ajinath s/o Mahadev Sanap

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 2.

¶11

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND

¶12

R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 16th December, 2010

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1 The petitioner is appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school run by Respondent No.3 – Institution. After appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, a proposal in prescribed format was forwarded to the Education Officer seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner. However, the Education Officer, in view of the impugned order passed on 07.05.2010 refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that an appeal has been preferred by one Swati Pawar – Respondent No.5 herein in respect of her removal from services, which is pending before the School Tribunal, Solapur, being Appeal No.83/2009. It is also noted in the order that as the said appeal is sub judice before the Tribunal, wherein petitioner herein is arrayed as Respondent, approval cannot be granted to his appointment.

¶15

2 In the affidavit-in-reply presented on behalf of the Deputy

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp796010.odt

¶18

Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, same contentions are reiterated.

¶19

3 The appeal presented by Respondent No.5 herein in respect of her removal from service would be considered on its own merits by the School Tribunal and there shall not be any impediment for the Education Officer to consider the proposal forwarded by the Respondent-Institution for according approval to the appointment of the petitioner, subject to final decision in the said appeal.

¶20

4 In this view of the matter, petition can be disposed of by directing Respondent No.3 – Education Officer to consider the proposal tendered by Respondent-Institution in respect of granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner, subject to final decision in the pending appeal i.e. Appeal No.83/2009 by the School Tribunal, Solapur, within stipulated period. Respondent No.2 shall take decision in respect of granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

¶21

5 With these directions, Petition stands disposed of.

¶22

R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

adb/wp796010

Ajinaht Mahadeo Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajinaht Mahadeo Sanap 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

Gajmal Rupchand Thakare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Suryabhan Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shamkant Kisanrao Rane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satish Sahadev Mangal Katke Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivaji Rama Jamge Vs the State of Mah and Ors.