Partly allowed

Randhir Rangnathrao Jogdand v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2013WP/3089/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to continue in post and sanction permanent vacancies in a Health University due to stop-gap appointments. Court directed State Government to decide on the matter within four months to prevent suffering in health education.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.1 to take necessary decision to sanction posts and fill vacancies within four months. Interim order vacated.

Randhir Rangnathrao Jogdand Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 3089 OF 2012

¶3

RANDHIR RANGNATHRAO JOGDAND VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

¶4

... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.R.Barlinge AGP for Respondent 1 : Shri G.K.Thigale (Naik) Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri K.C.Sant Advocate for Respondent 3 : Shri V.R.Sonwalkar

¶5

... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: October 10, 2013

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶8

The petitioner before us points out that respondent No.2 Health University needs several permanent posts and permanent staff members. As the permanent posts are still not sanctioned by the State Government, posts are being filled in on stop gap basis i.e. from year to year. He, therefore, requests that till the posts are permanently filled in, he should be continued and direction should be given to State Government to sanction the required number of posts.

¶9

Learned Advocate Shri Sant points out that a proposal to fill in 762 posts is pending with the Government. He further submits that as per the provisions of Section 9(2)(i) of the Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences Act, 1998, the posts which are not permanently sanctioned must be filled in on ad-hoc basis.

¶10

Learned AGP submits that the Government is trying it's best and the posts need to be initially created by the University itself through it's own resources and funds. Learned AGP has also invited our attention to the

¶11

akl

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶13

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 3089 OF 2012

¶15

statement made in reply affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 in paragraph No.5.

¶16

It is apparent that the Health Education earlier with the conventional Universities has been assigned to respondent No.2 by creating it as a special University to regulate the Health Education in the entire State. With the result, it was necessary and essential for the State Government to provide necessary staff at threshold as otherwise the education related work in the said discipline being handled by various Universities would not have been looked into by newly constituted respondent No.2 University. Document filed by the petitioner along with the affidavit, shows that only 117 posts have been filled in. Looking to the required compliment as communication by respondent No.2, this figure is meager.

¶17

In order to see that the Health Education in the area does not suffer and respondent No.2 is in a position to administer it's affairs fully, it is essential for respondent No.1 to take a proper decision at the earliest and hence in this situation, we direct respondent No.1 to take necessary decision within period of four months from today.

¶18

With this direction and keeping other contentions open, we dispose of the petition. Needless to mention, the interim order stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶20

akl

Randhir Rangnathrao Jogdand v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Rangnathrao Jogdand v. the State of Mah and 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

Yogesh Ashokrao Panjabi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Udaykumar Murlidhar Ballal and Anr. Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Shodhan Yeshwant Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Omkar Builders and Developers Thr Partner Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Nandkishor Laxminarayan Toshniwal

Nita Naval Patil Vs the Union of India and Others