Allowed

State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Prafull Devidasrao Shinde and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2014WP/3244/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court at Aurangabad refused to enforce a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order directing appointment of two respondents as Assistant Geologists. The court held that after a 12-year delay and a previous stay, enforcement was pointless. The petition succeeded and the Tribunal order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal set aside; Rule made absolute.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Prafull Devidasrao… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P.No.3244/2001

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3244 OF 2001

¶5

The State of Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 3. The Superintending Engineer, (Masonry Dam), Central Design Organization, Nasik. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Prafull s/o Devidasrao Shinde, Age 31 years, Occ. Service (As Lecturer on hour basis in Institute of Science), R/o : 3/93, Anandnagar, Kotla Colony, Aurangabad 2. Ajay s/o Vithalsing Rathod, Age 32 years, Occ. Nil, R/o C/o S.N. Ganjkar, Om Niwas, Power House Road, Shrinagar, Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.P. More, A.G.P. for petitioners / State Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶6

CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATED: 1st October, 2014.

¶7

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.V. Nirgude, J.) :

¶8

The learned A.G.P. mentions that, due to interim

¶9

order passed in their favour in this petition, the respondents'

¶10

W.P.No.3244/2001

¶11

¶12

chances of getting advantage of the impugned order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal are now negligible. The respondents were selected as Assistant Geologists, but the Government refused to appoint them due to ban on appointments. The respondents went to Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ordered that they should be appointed. Against this order, the State rushed to this Court and obtained an order of stay. In view of this order, the respondents did not get appointed. With the result, as informed by learned counsel for respondents, the respondents were required to find some other alternate jobs.

¶13

This petition remained pending for last more than 12 years and now there is no scope for the respondents taking any advantage of the impugned order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in their favour. Mere selection gives no right as such to seek compulsory appointment. Enforcing impugned order now is pointless. In view of this, the petition succeeds. The order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is set aside. Rule made absolute.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Prafull Devidasrao Shinde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Prafull Devidasrao Shinde and Anr.

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

Kondiba Munjaji Waghmare Vs Marathwada Gramin Bank and Anr.

Shivhari Yeduba Mundhe Vs the State of Maharahstra and Others

Rangnath Pandharinath Dagwale Vs the State of Mahaashtra and Ors.

Rajaram Balwant Mahandule Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sajiya Parveen Abdul Rauf and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash Vishwanath Dandge Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.