Dismissed

Shri Mahendra Atmaram Kalekar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Bombay HC4 May 2016WP/4082/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order refusing to consider a petitioner's claim for appointment approval due to staffing pattern constraints. The bench directed the Education Officer to reconsider the claim based on the appointment year 2007 within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondent No. 2 directed to reconsider claim based on 2007 appointment and decide within eight weeks.

Shri Mahendra Atmaram Kalekar and Anr. Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp-4802/16.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4082 OF 2016

¶4

Mahendra Atmaram Kalekar and Another. ..Petitioners. Versus

¶5

State of Maharashtra & Another.

¶6

..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar i/b Mr. M. G. Bagkar for the Petitioners. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

Coram : SHANTANU KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, JJ. Date : May 4, 2016 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Parties through their counsel.

¶11

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5^th March 2016

¶12

passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Raigad at Alibag–Respondent No.2 herein, the Petitioner has filed this petition.

¶13

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Petitioner No.1 was appointed on 17^th October 2017 and in the circumstances his claim for approval to the appointment is wrongly refused on the ground that it cannot be considered since the staffing pattern is not available as on today. He submits that the Petitioners' claim ought to have been

1 / 2

patilsr

wp-4802/16.

considered taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 and not according to the present staffing pattern.

¶18

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, we are of the view that Respondent No.2 has committed an error in refusing to consider the Petitioner's case by observing that as on today the staffing pattern is not made available by the State Government.

¶19

In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and direct Respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioners' claim for approval to appointment of Petitioner No.1 taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner No.1 was appointed in the year 2007. Petitioner No.2 to resubmit proposal within two weeks from today. The appropriate decision shall be taken on the said proposal within eight weeks for the date of receipt of the same.

¶20

Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid

¶21

directions.

¶22

[RANJIT MORE, J.] [SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶23

2 / 2

¶24

patilsr

Shri Mahendra Atmaram Kalekar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mahendra Atmaram Kalekar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

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

Shri. Chavan Dattajirao Namdeo Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Rupali Dipak Lakhan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Rajendra Mohan Wabale and Anr. Vs the Director Directorate of Technical Education and Anr.

Dr. R. M. Haridas Vs the State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Kavle Laxmi Narsimlu and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi Division and Ors.