The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed WRIT PETITIONS NO. 8016 and 8017 of 2011. The judges found no merit in the petitioners' arguments requesting that doctors who signed earlier bond agreements should be required to work before the petitioners are called for service.
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
aswp-8016-8017-11
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8016 OF 2011
Dr. Vipur s/o Vilasrao Pathak and ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8017 OF 2011
Dr. Rohit s/o Rameshchandra Kakani and ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents
Mr. S.S. Naik with Mr. Vaibhav Sugdhare and Mr. M.K. Deshpande for petitioners.
Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.
CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.
DECEMBER 01, 2011.
P.C.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and we do not find any merit in his arguments that the doctors who have passed
2
aswp-8016-8017-11
earlier to the petitioners ought to be called first to work as bond signed Medical Officers.
Hence, the petitions are rejected summarily.
(SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bond signed medical officers should be called to work before the petitioners.
Dr. Vipur s/o Vilasrao Pathak and ors.
State of Maharashtra and ors.
Dr. Rohit s/o Rameshchandra Kakani and ors.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
B. H. Marlappalle
Nishita Mhatre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
