Disposed

Dnyandeo Baburao Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2015WP/389/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking appointment approval for a teacher, a connected contempt petition, and a civil application. The writ petition was disposed due to a statement by the Education Officer to help the petitioner. The contempt petition stood disposed, and a deposited amount in the civil application was refunded to the applicant, deemed the legal heir of a deceased respondent

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute inWP ; contempt petition disposed ; amount in CA refunded to applicant as legal heir.

Dnyandeo Baburao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

( 1 ) wp389.02

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 389 OF 2002

¶4

Dnyandeo s/o. Baburao Gaikwad..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶7

WITH CONTEMPT PETITIOIN NO. 149 OF 2003 IN

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 389 OF 2002

¶9

Dnyandeo s/o. Baburao Gaikwad..Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶12

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 780 OF 2015

¶13

IN

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 389 OF 2002

¶15

Sunil s/o. Shripatrao Holkar..Applicant

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶18

( 2 ) wp389.02

¶19

Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, AGP for respondent/State.
Shri D.R. Shrikant Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr.V.R. Dhorde,
Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶20

Mr. Dr. A.Y. Pandule, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. N.N. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.5 in WP.
Mr. P.S. Dighe h/f. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for
applicant in CA.

¶21

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
V.K. JADHAV,JJ.
DATED :21.01.2015

¶22

P.C. :-

¶23

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned
A.G.P. makes a statement that the Education Officer -
Smt. Sunanda Bhagaji Thube, who is present before the
Court and has filed affidavit today on record, will
undertake the scrutiny of the record and will do whatever
is possible in order to help the petitioner in getting
approval for his appointment as a Teacher for the period
2000 till 2006. In view of this statement, the writ
petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute
accordingly.

¶24

2.In view of aforesaid order passed in the writ
petition, connected contempt petition does not survive
and stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

3.Perused the connected Civil Application. The
amount deposited by respondent No.3 – Dr. Shripati
Haribhau Holkar in the connected contempt petition be
refunded to the applicant in this civil application, who
is said to be son and legal heir of respondent No.3-Dr.
Shripati Haribhau Holkar. The Civil Application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶26

snk /2015/JAN15/wp389.02

Dnyandeo Baburao Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyandeo Baburao Gaikwad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajranglal Radheshyam Pariyal Vs the Chairman of Board of Director Marathwada and O

Mahadeo Sitaram Bacche Vs the Chairman, Board of Directors of Marathwada

Satish Trimbakrao Deshmukh Vs the Chairman Board of Director of Marathwada

Ajit Lakhminchand Bothra Vs M/S Nirmal Constructions through Its Partner Ashok Bansilal Mutha and Others

MAJOR(RETD)IC-22687 P M.Natrajan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Municipal Council Raver Thr President Vs Sarlabai Shankarrao Kulkarni and Ors.