Disposed

Vinit Madhukar Wairagar v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Apr 2016WP/2665/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought directions for an exp expeditious decision on his representation for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The High Court directed the school committee and the Head Master to decide within six weeks, adhering to Government Resolution guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directions given to respondent nos. 3 and 4 to decide on petitioner's application within six weeks and communicate the decision.

Vinit Madhukar Wairagar Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

(1)W.P. No. 2665 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶3

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

Writ Petition No. 2665 of 2015

¶5

District : Ahmednagar

¶6

Vinit s/o. Madhukar Wairagar,
Age : 38 years,
Occupation : Service,
Assistant Teacher in Rural
High School, Puntamba,
R/o. Methodist Church Campus
at Post : Puntamba,
Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.
versus
1.The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.

¶8

3. The President / Chairman, Governing Board in Educational Institution (G.B.E.I.), Methodist Center, 21 Y.M.C.A. Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400 008.

¶9

4.The Head Master,
Rural High School, Puntamba,
At post Puntamba,
Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents.

¶10

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

¶11

(2)W.P. No. 2665 of 2015

¶12

Mr. Amol N. Kakade, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. B.V. Virdhe, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶14

Mr. A.S. Khedkar, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

DATE : 5TH APRIL 2016

¶18

PER COURT :

¶19

1.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned Asst. Government Pleader
appearing for respondent nos.1 & 2 and the learned
Counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶20

2.Admittedly, the representation / application
filed by the petitioner to the Management of the
School Committee, Rural High School, Puntamba, is not
yet decided. The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon Government
Resolution dated 25th November 1988, issued by the
Department of Education & Employment of the
Government of Maharashtra and also the letter issued
by the Education Officer to respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶21

3.We direct respondent nos.3 and 4 to take
decision on the application / representation filed by

¶22

(3)W.P. No. 2665 of 2015

¶23

the petitioner, keeping in view the Government
Resolution and also instructions issued by the
Education Officer of which reference is made herein
above, as expeditiously as possible, however, within
a period of six weeks from today and communicate the
decision so taken to the petitioner.

¶24

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

¶25

5.Parties to act on an authenticated copy of
this order.

¶26

 puranik / WP2665.15

Vinit Madhukar Wairagar v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinit Madhukar Wairagar v. 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

Kishor Dhartinath Burikule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Habib Ali Mehboob Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Haribhau Deore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Masnaji Yashwanta Yelleboinwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhimdas Baliram Madale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Parwati Rajaram Suryawanshi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others