Disposed

Vaibhav Maruti Ghatge and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2016WP/11264/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Respondent had a duty to decide the petitioners' appointment proposals expeditiously. The petitions were disposed of by directing the Respondent to consider the proposals within four weeks and directing petitioners to supply copies, while maintaining the existing status quo.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 directed to consider and decide proposals within four weeks; status quo maintained.

Vaibhav Maruti Ghatge and Anr. Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

prod-61 & 72-wp-11226-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.11226 OF 2016

¶4

(Producation Board Dt. 28/09/2016)

¶5

Sachin Kashinath Kamble ...Petitioner

¶6

vs. State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITINO NO.11264 OF 2016(Sr.No.72)

¶9

(Producation Board Dt. 28/09/2016)

¶10

Vaibhav Maruti Ghatge and Another ...Petitioners vs. State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents

¶11

Mr. C.G. Patil, for the Petitioners

¶12

Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶13

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2016

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.

¶17

Parties through their counsel.

¶18

The grievance of the Petitioners is that Respondent No. 2

¶19

before whom the proposals sent by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for

¶20

approval of the Petitioners' appointment is pending has not decided the same as yet.

¶21

1/2

¶22

Vishal Parekar

¶23

prod-61 & 72-wp-11226-2016

¶24

On the other hand the learned AGP submits that the

¶25

Petitioners have not filed copy of the resolution but only filed a copy of the letter sent by the institute to Respondent No. 2.

¶26

Be that as it may, we are of the view that it is the duty of Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the proposal received from the institute as expeditiously as possible. Having not done so, we are disposing these Petitions by directing Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the proposals sent along with covering letter as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Petitioners to supply a copy of entire proposal to Respondent No. 2 along with the copy of this order.

¶27

Till the Petitioners' claim for approval is considered and decided, the status quo as it exists today in respect of post occupied by the Petitioners shall be maintained.

¶28

The Petitions stand disposed of as such.

¶29

(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.)

¶30

(SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶31

2/2

¶32

Vishal Parekar

Vaibhav Maruti Ghatge and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Maruti Ghatge and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 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

Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan Vs All India Council for Technical Education and 2 Ors.

The Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Sudesh Udaywar

Mahesh Sangmeshwarswami Hiremath Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Pune

M/S. Avia Construction Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Maharashtra State Police Housing and Welfare Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Sachin Kashinath Kamble Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.