Disposed

Smt. Neeta Amit Khardikar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Dept of School Education and Sports and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2014WP/11635/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a teacher selected by Bhiwandi Corporation, sought an appointment letter which was not received due to wrong address. The court found laches and age bar, declining to issue any direction but advised filing a comprehensive representation.

What did the court decide?

No direction issued; advised to file comprehensive representation to Dy. Director, Education.

Smt. Neeta Amit Khardikar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

6.WPNo.116352013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11635 OF 2013

¶4

Smt.Neeta Amit Khardikar	...	Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	...	Respondents

¶5

Mr.Nitin Gangal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P.Kakade, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.N.R.Bubna, Advocate for the Respondents No.2 to 4.

¶6

CORAM :NARESH H.PATIL & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ. DATED :28TH JULY, 2014

¶7

P.C.

¶8

The petitioner claims to have been selected as a teacher by the respondent - Bhiwandi Corporation. It is the petitioner's case that the appointment letter was posted on a wrong address of the petitioner, which was not received by the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, made consistent representation to various authorities. The authorities showed sympathy to the petitioner expressing their concern that the petitioner deserves appointment. But so far the petitioner was not issued with any appointment letter.

¶9

The learned counsel for the corporation submits that there is a delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. The petitioner now has become age barred.

1/2

Gaikwad RD

6.WPNo.116352013

We find that there are laches on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court seeking direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the selection list of 2008-2009. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to issue any direction to the respondent. However, the petitioner may file an appropriate comprehensive representation to the Dy. Director, Education. We do not express any opinion on the merits. The petition is disposed of.

¶14

(RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,J.)

¶15

(NARESH .H.PATIL, J.)

¶16

2/2

¶17

Gaikwad RD

Smt. Neeta Amit Khardikar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Dept of School Education and Sports and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neeta Amit Khardikar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Dept of School Education and Sports 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

Prakash Dashrath Gude Vs Director of Fisheries, Maharashtra State and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Dept and Ors. Vs Dr. Arvind Krishnaji Jadhav and Ors.

Prakash Dashrath Gude Vs Director of Fisheries, Maharashtra State and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Ors. Vs Shri. Sagar G. Chikshhe

Vasant K. Thakur and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union of India, through Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways and Ors. Vs Mr. Jaideep Digambar Pawar