Disposed

Shri Gurasiddappa Malakappa Rabba v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Dec 2016WP/13072/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition challenging the State's inaction regarding the Petitioner's appointment. The Court held that the Respondent must consider the appointment proposal and explicitly directed that the Respondent not insist on a No Objection Certificate, citing a related precedent.

What did the court decide?

Opinion directed the Respondent to pass an order on the appointment proposal within two months and to not insist on a No Objection Certificate.

Shri Gurasiddappa Malakappa Rabba Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

14.wp.13072.16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 13072 OF 2016

¶4

Shri Gurasiddappa Malakappa Rabba … Petitioner

¶5

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar a/w Mr. Sagar A Mane i/b. M. G. Bagkar for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms. R. M. Shinde - AGP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 22nd DECEMBER, 201 6.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the

¶12

Respondent No.2 after submission of the relevant documents as

¶13

demanded vide letter dated 01.01.2015 Exh.F, the Petitioner has

¶14

filed this petition. According to the Petitioner, out of the six

¶15

deficiencies which were pointed out in the said communication

¶16

dated 01.01.2015, the Petitioner had rectified the deficiencies in

¶17

respect to five of them and was communicated vide letter dated

¶18

Habeeb 1/3

¶19

14.wp.13072.16.doc

¶20

12.01.2015 Exh.G. In regard to deficiencies No. 3 pointed out in the said communication dated 01.01.2015, about submission of no objection certificate from the department, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being appointed in minority institution, the requirement of filling of no objection certificate of the department would not be necessary. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner this point was though made clear vide letter dated 28 August 2015 Exh. H, but no heed has been paid by the Education Inspector to it.

¶21

2 . Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties we dispose of this petition by directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider and pass appropriate order in regard to the proposal submitted by the Respondent No. 3 in regard to the appointment of the Petitioner. However, it is made clear that the Respondent No. 2 will not insist for no objection certificate in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vinod Laxman

¶22

Shelkar & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Writ

¶23

Petition No. 2207 of 2016 decided vide order dated 31 March 2016).

¶24

Habeeb 2/3

¶25

14.wp.13072.16.doc

¶26

3 . Let the decision as aforesaid be taken by the Respondent No. 2 as expeditiously as possible but not later than 2

¶27

months from the date of receipt of copy of this order with the aforesaid directions. The petition is disposed of.

¶28

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU. S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶29

Habeeb 3/3

Shri Gurasiddappa Malakappa Rabba v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Gurasiddappa Malakappa Rabba v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhana Education Society, D.Ed Colllege (English Medium), through Chairman/Director/Trustee Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Nagnath Balbhim Bhosle (Since Decd) through Lrs. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hanuman Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Chairman Shri. Bharat Yamgar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Vijaykumar Sadashiv Nimbalkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mak Pan Associates Represented through Partners Vs Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority through Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Mohammad Ayub Peer Mohd Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Anr.