Dismissed

Dr. Kum. Chhaya Parashram Fule v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Health Department and 5 Others

Bombay HC12 Sept 2012WP/5359/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent no. 6 as Assistant Lecturer. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the appointment valid as it implemented a Division Bench order directing fresh appointments, rendering the petitioner dislodgable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Dr. Kum. Chhaya Parashram Fule Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp5359-11.order

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 5359 of 2011

¶4

Dr. Ku. Chhaya Parashram Fule

¶5

-vs-

¶6

The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and Others.

¶7

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

¶8

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶9

Mr. A.S. Athalye, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. K. Deshplande, learned AGP for the respondents-State

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH , JJ.

¶11

DATE : 12th September, 2012.

¶12

The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the respondent no.2 appointing the respondent no.6 on the post of Assistant Lecturer in respondent no.4 college and hence the petitioner filed Original Application No.643/2011 challenging the appointment. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, however, by the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 12.10.2011 in the instant petition.

¶13

The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not have been dislodged as an Assistant Lecturer unless and until the respondent no.2 appointed a regular lecturer after following the due selection process.

¶14

It is brought to the notice of this court by the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader by relying on the affidavit-in-reply that the appointment of the respondent no.6 has been made in place of the petitioner in pursuance of the directions issued by this

¶15

wp5359-11.order

¶16

court on 29.8.2011 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1619/2011 and others directing the respondents to appoint 1658 MBBS candidates who had completed their apprenticeship on the post of Medical Officer and Assistant Lecturer. It is submitted that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court at the principal seat on 29.8.2011, an advertisement was issued and after following the due selection procedure the respondent no.6 has been appointed.

¶17

In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3, which is supported by an affidavit, it appears that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Lecturer on temporary basis from year to year and her appointment was subject to the selection and appointment of duly selected candidate. Since the respondent no.6 has been appointed with a view to implement the order passed by the Division Bench at the principal seat on 29.8.2011, the order appointing the respondent no.6 cannot be found fault with.

¶18

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

Hirekhan

Dr. Kum. Chhaya Parashram Fule v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Health Department and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Kum. Chhaya Parashram Fule v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Health Department and 5 Others

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

Jatashankar Upadhaya and Ors. Vs Mah. Elektrosmelt Ltd. Thr. Ex.Director, Chandrapur

Western Coalfields Ltd., Thru. Chief Gen. Manager Vs State of Mah. Thru. Revenue and Forest Dept. and 2 Ors.

Western Coalfields Ltd.Chandrapur Vs State of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai and Another

Ku. Lalita D/O Gangadhar Dabhane Vs Municipal Council Achalpur Thr Its Chief Officer Achalpur

Indira Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Secty. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and 4 Ors.

Ku. Archana Manoharrao Gangras Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.