Dismissed

Ashok Sudhakar Palve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2012WP/940/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an N.T.(D) candidate, challenged a 2008 promotion order filed in 2012, claiming deprivation due to lack of M.T.D. candidates. Court declined writ jurisdiction but directed Zilla Parishad to consider petitioner for future vacancy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Zilla Parishad to consider petitioner for promotion in the next available vacancy; writ petition disposed of.

Ashok Sudhakar Palve Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

WP940-12

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.: 940 OF 2012

¶6

Ashok Sudhakar Palve

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

***

¶10

Mr. V. P. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. V. D.
Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. D. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1
and 2.

¶12

Ms. Chaitali R. Chaudhari, Advopcate for
Respondent No.3.

¶13

Mr. V. P. Raje, Advocate for Respondent No.
4.

¶14

***

¶15

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &

¶16

U. D. SALVI, JJ.
DATED: 25th JULY, 2012.

¶17

PER COURT:

¶18

1. Heard.

¶19

2. The petitioner challenges promotion

¶20

oder of Respondent dated 26th May, 2008 by
filing this petition in the year 2012. The
contention of the petitioner is that before

¶21

WP940-12

¶22

-:(2):-

¶23

3 days of his achieving three years service

¶24

period, resolution was passed and the
respondent was promoted. The petitioner is
N.T.(D) candidate. The petitioner is
deprived of his lawful claim of promotion.

¶25

3.Respondent/ Zilla Parishad has taken a

¶26

stand that on the next available vacancy
the petitioner would be considered for
promotion. As no candidate from M.T.D. was
available the Zilla Parishad had appointed
the respondent.

¶27

4.Though the petitioner had filed a

¶28

representation to the Chief Executive
Officer on 3rd May, 2008 it is submitted
that the same was kept pending and not
decided.

¶29

5.In the facts of the case, we are not
inclined to entertain this petition in
exerciseofextraordinarywrit

¶30

jurisdiction of this Court.

¶31

6.However, we direct that the Zilla

¶32

Parishad shall consider the petitioner for
promotion on its own merits in the next

¶33

-:(3):-

¶34

WP940-12

¶35

available vacancy.

¶36

7.Thepetitionisdisposedof

¶37

accordingly.

¶38

[U. D. SALVI, J.][NARESH H.PATIL J.]
Dt.25/07/2012
ans/WP940-12

Ashok Sudhakar Palve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Sudhakar Palve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Nemulal Maroti Bhandwale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vaishali Jagdish Salunkhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mauli Doodh Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pandharechi Wadi Thr Chairman Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha Nanded Thr Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt Kamalbai Radhakisan Gite Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Savita Dattatraya Malunjkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.