Disposed

Sushil S/O Wasudeo Kale and 3 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secty., and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2012WP/4321/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a ban on Pharmacist appointments and a direction for immediate appointment after the State Government lifted the ban during the pendency of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to appoint petitioners nos. 2 to 4 as Pharmacists within two weeks after lifting the ban.

Sushil S/O Wasudeo Kale and 3 Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp4321-11.order

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No. 4321 of 2011

¶5

Sushil Wasudeo Kale and others.

¶6

-vs-

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mrs. K. Deshpande, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. S.W. Zinjarde, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, &

¶12

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH , JJ.

¶13

DATE : 3 rd September, 2012.

¶14

By this petition, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the ban imposed by the State Government on the appointment to the post of Pharmacists by the Government Resolutions dated 5.6.2010 and 30.6.2011. The petitioners seek a further direction to the respondent no.3 - the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur to appoint the petitioners forthwith on the post of Pharmacists pursuant to their selection to the said post within stipulated time.

¶15

An affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 stating therein that the respondent no. 3 – the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, was ready to appoint the petitioners on the post of Pharmacists but was not in a position to do so in view of the ban. The respondent no. 3 stated in the affidavit that the process of issuing appointment order had not been delayed for reasons attributable to the respondent no. 3 and the appointments could not be done in view of the ban imposed by the government on appointment of Pharmacists.

¶16

wp4321-11.order

¶17

¶18

The State Government has now lifted the ban imposed on the appointment of the Pharmacists by the Government Resolutions dated 5.6.2010 and 13.6.2011. In the changed circumstances, there would be no hitch for the respondent no. 3 in making the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Pharmacists. It is informed to this court by the learned counsel for the parties that during the pendency of the petition the petitioner no. 1 has been appointed on the post of Pharmacist. In view of the said position, the respondent no. 3 should take steps to consider the appointment of the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 on the post of Pharmacists within a period of two weeks.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

Hirekhan

Sushil S/O Wasudeo Kale and 3 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secty., and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil S/O Wasudeo Kale and 3 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secty., and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu S/O Manharbhai Patel Vs M/S S.M.World, a Partnership Firm, Thr. Its Partner Vishal S/O Jawaharlal Dubey and 3 Others

Valmik S/O Nagoji Khobragade Vs State of Maharashtra, Law and Judiciary Department and 2 Other

Shrikant Madhukar Deshpande and Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Ritesh S/O Ramdaspant Mandale Vs Nagar Parishad, Achalpur, Thr Chairman, Standing Committee (President) Achalpur

Abhay Shaligram Gajbhiye Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secy., Public Health Deptt. , Mantralaya, Mumbai

Sau. Niranjana Suresh Nawale, through P.O.A. Suresh Gambhirrao Nawale Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and Anohter