Disposed

Vaishali Dharamraj Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Apr 2016WP/1399/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged inaction by the Education Officer regarding her appointment approval. The High Court directed the official to decide the proposal on merits within four weeks and communicate the outcome to the Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Respondent Education Officer to decide on the approval proposal within four weeks and communicate the decision to the Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal.

Vaishali Dharamraj Patil Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

(1)W.P. No. 1399 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶3

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

Writ Petition No. 1399 of 2016

¶5

District : Jalgaon

¶6

Smt. Vaishali Dharamraj Patil,
Age : 39 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. at Marwad,
Taluka : Amalner,
District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶9

2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik, District : Nashik.

¶10

3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Jalgaon.

¶11

4. Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal, Marwad, Taluka : Amalner, District : Jalgaon, Through its Chairman / Secretary.

¶12

5. S.H. Mundade High School, Marwad, Taluka : Amalner, District : Jalgaon, Through its Head Master. .. Respondents.

¶13

............

¶14

Mr. Sandip Rathod, Advocate, holding for Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶15

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶16

Respondent nos.4 and 5 served (Absent).

¶17

(2)W.P. No. 1399 of 2016

¶18

............

¶19

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶20

DATE : 18TH APRIL 2016

¶21

PER COURT :

¶22

The petitioner has raised limited grievance
in the petition, that though the proposal for
approval of the petitioner's appointment has been
submitted by respondent no.5, to respondent no.3, on
25th September 2012, no decision is taken by
respondent no.3 on the said proposal.

¶23

2.We direct respondent no.3 to take decision
on the said proposal on merits, as expeditiously as
possible, however, within a period of four weeks from
today and communication the decision so taken to
respondent no.4.

¶24

3.With the above directions, the Writ Petition
is disposed of.

¶25

4.Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.

¶26

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL) (S.S. SHINDE)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

 puranik / WP1399.16

Vaishali Dharamraj Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishali Dharamraj Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sushilkumar Lalasaheb Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akbar Khan Mustafa Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Waghur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sakegaon Dist Jalgaon Thr Its Chairman and Another Vs Indira Gandhi Madhyamik Vidyalaya Sakegaon Dist Jalgaon Thr Its Head Master and Others

Shivaji Bappasaheb Kharat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhawati Devidas Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shobha Rameshchandra Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others