Petitioner challenged approval of appointment of Respondent No.7, alleging illegality. Court found no case for interference as verification confirmed appointment's validity and granted approval. Writ petition rejected.
Petition rejected as no case made out for interference with the approved appointment.
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
18 wp.6106.11
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6106 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders
Liyakat Ali S/o Masoom Ali Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others.
Mr. S.S.Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.D.Godbharle, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 / State Authorities.
Mr. M.C.Syed, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 8. Mr. G.R.Syed, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI and
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 16th March, 2012.
P.C.
. The Petitioner challenges the approval granted in favour of Respondent No.7 by Respondent No.4.
2 It is the contention of the Petitioner that the appointment of Respondent No.7 was made in illegal manner and therefore, it could not have been approved.
2
18 wp.6106.11
3 Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply reveals that the Education Officer as well as the Deputy Director have verified the entire record and after verification of the record, come to the conclusion that the appointment of Respondent No.7 was validly made and as such approval was granted by the Education Officer. The Deputy Director has also found that the approval granted in favour of Respondent No.7, is rightly granted.
ndm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the approval of appointment of the respondent despite the petitioner's contention that the appointment was made illegally.
Liyakat Ali
State of Maharashtra
B.R. Gavai
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
