Allowed

Vasantika Markasrao Ghule v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2012WP/1723/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This batch of writ petitions challenged the denial of promotional benefits to Lady Health Visitors who had not passed the S.S.C. examination. The court held that existing rules mandated 50% promotions from Auxiliary Nurse Mid-wives without S.S.C. degrees. Following a prior judgment, the court permitted the petitions and directed the respondent to consider petitioner representations within six week

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; Respondent No. 2 directed to consider petitioner representations within six weeks.

Vasantika Markasrao Ghule Vs the State of Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp-1723.12

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1723 OF 2012

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NOS. 1755 AND 1919 OF 2012

¶9

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's Coram: B.R.Gavai and
orders or directions Sunil P. Deshmukh, JJ
and the Registrar's
orders. Date : 27.3.2012

¶10

Shri Amol S. Gandhi Advocate for Petitioners. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1

¶11

Shri S.S. Tope, Advocate, for Respondent No.2.

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶13

The issue in the present batch of writ petitions is covered by judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.1162 of 1994 dated 21.7.2010, wherein this court has held that the rules governing service conditions of the petitioners specifically provide that fifty per cent of the promotions to the posts of the Lady Health Visitor would be from Auxiliary Nurse

¶14

Mid-wife who have not passed S.S.C. examination. It has further been categorically held that the Respondents cannot

¶15

issue directions contrary to the said rules.

¶16

¶17

wp-1723.12

¶18

In that view of the matter, we find that the action of the Respondents in the present matters, denying promotional benefits to petitioners on the ground that they have not passed S.S.C. examination are not sustainable.

¶19

The petitions are, therefore, allowed, by directing Respondent No. 2 consider the representations of the petitioners in the light of law laid down by this court in Writ Petition No.1162 of 1994. The same shall be done within six weeks from today.

¶20

Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

¶21

(Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.)

¶22

(B.R. Gavai, J.)

¶23

pnd/wp-1723.12

Vasantika Markasrao Ghule v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasantika Markasrao Ghule v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivdas Ukandrao Sonule Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ravindra Uddavrao Garkal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Dinkar Dayaram Patil Vs Nilesh Ranjit Bhoite and Ors.

Ankush Nivrutti Kachave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dadasaheb Bhagirth Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Venkat Yashwant Vayal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.