The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition regarding the petitioner's caste claim and three-year service as Shikshan Sevek by referring to a earlier Division Bench order.
Directed the Respondent to submit proposals within three weeks; Education Officer to process the claim within eight weeks; petition disposed of.
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.
dgm 1
11-wp-3606-15.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3606 OF 2015
Lalita Bhagwan Chavan .... Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra and ors .... Respondents
Mr. Sagar A. Mane I/by Mr. S.C. Yeramwar for the petitioner. Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP for respondents 1, 3 and 6. Mr. Pratik B. Rohade I/by Mr. Pramod N. Joshi for respondent No.4.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A. A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : September 07, 2015
ORDER:
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
2 We are inclined to dispose of the present Petition in view
of a Division Bench Order dated 22.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.
11005/2014 – Dharaji G. Koskewad v. The State of Maharashtra (Aurangabad Bench), as the Petitioner is similarly placed, as contended for the fact that she has completed three years as shikshan sevek and further her caste claim is also pending before the Scrutiny Committee. This Court has granted relief to consider such cases. Therefore, by keeping all points open, we are inclined
1/3
dgm 2
11-wp-3606-15.sxw
to pass the following order ;
ORDER
submit/forward the proposals as early as possible and preferably within three weeks.
(ii) The Petitioner is at liberty to file additional representation to the management. The management to forward the same also along with its proposal to the Education Officer within three weeks.
(iii) The Education Officer to process the same on its own merits in view of order passed by this Court so referred above and in accordance with law as early
as possible and preferably within eight weeks
thereafter.
(A. A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
2/3
dgm 3
11-wp-3606-15.sxw
C E R T I F I C A T E
“ I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a
true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.”
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a similarly placed petitioner is entitled to consider the pending caste claim and service completion for promotion.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dharaji G. Koskewad v. The State of Maharashtra (Aurangabad Bench)Referred¶13
Writ Petition No. 11005/2014
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lalita Bhagwan Chavan
The State of Maharashtra
Anoop V. Mohta
A. A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
