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
88wp1105.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1105 OF 2012
(Kirankumar S. Rathod & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance through its Secretary & Ors.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. AUGUST 08, 2012.
Heard Shri Wathore, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Joshi, learned AGP for respondents NO. 1 to 3 and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 391 of 2012 and Respondent No. 4 in this writ petition, has filed an affidavit in reply in which in paras 7 & 8, what is stated is as under :
“7. It is further submitted that, in the academic session 2012-13 the strength of the student is 172 i.e. double than last academic session. This fact is clear from the list of the student annexed herewith as Annexure R-4B.
8. That, normally after opening of academic session, respondent No. 2 is required to prepare the staff justification of the school which is made on the basis of
2
88wp1105.12
strength of student. However, till date said staff justification is not prepared by respondent No. 2. It is stated that, as per the opinion of this respondent No. 4 considering the present strength of student which is double than last academic session, naturally the more staff is permissible in the school. In this regard, on 11.07.2012, this answering respondent made specific application to the office of respondent No. 2 to prepare the staff justification report of the school. The copy of application made by respondent No. 4 dated 11.07.2012 to the office of respondent No. 2 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-4C.”
In the light of these paras which are taken from the affidavit of Respondent No. 4 – management, the petitioners stated that their services are presently protected until such time as this proposal made to the Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare, Akola, is under consideration.
Let the Assistant Commissioner take a decision on this proposal as expeditiously as possible and after hearing all affected parties and intimate the same within a period of six weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. Let the parties appear before him on 16th August 2012.
It goes without saying that the petitioners services are being protected by virtue of the statements which we have reproduced above, so presently there is
3
88wp1105.12
no apprehension and, therefore, the petition need not be kept pending and hence, writ petition is disposed of accordingly and with clarification that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*GS.
Kirankumar S. Rathod & Ors.
State of Maharashtra
S.C. Dhármadhikári
M.T. Jóshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
