Disposed

Sandeep Babasaheb Chate and Others v. Shiv Vardhaman Sthanakwasi Jain Shrawak Sangh Guru Ganesh Nagar Jalna and Others

Bombay HC7 Sept 2018CA/944/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil application arising from a writ petition, the court refused an interim order as applicants were not in service. The writ petition was listed for final hearing, and the post-filling exercise was directed to continue contingent upon the petition's outcome.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application disposed of after directing final hearing list; interim prayer refused; post-filling exercise to continue subject to final order.

Sandeep Babasaheb Chate and Others Vs Shiv Vardhaman… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

{1} 904CA944-18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 944 OF 2018

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2017

¶6

Sandeep Babasaheb Chate and Ors.

¶7

...Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Vardhaman Sthanakwasi Jain Madhyamik Va Uccha Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Jalna and Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicants Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. A.D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No. 4

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 7^th SEPTEMBER, 2018

¶14

PER COURT

¶15

Heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the applicants. Mr. Deshpande made an attempt to submit before us that in view of the statement made in para Nos. 4 and 5, the exercise which is already undertaken by the respondent-institute to fill-up the post as per the fresh staffing pattern may cause prejudice to the applicants. On the backdrop of the submissions of Mr. Dhage that the

¶16

{2} 904CA944-18

¶17

petitioners are not in service and their challenge is yet to be considered by this Court on merits, we are not inclined to grant any interim order as prayed by Mr. Deshpande. Both the Counsel appearing for the contesting parties namely, Mr. Deshpande for the applicants and Mr. Dhage for the respondent-institute submitted that the petition is ripe for hearing and even it was heard for some time, but for the paucity of time, the Petition could not be heard.

¶18

In view of this fact, we direct the office to list the Petition for final hearing/disposal in the week commencing from 15^th October, 2018.

¶19

We further make it clear that the exercise to fill-up the post to continue, but the same would be subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition.

¶20

In view of the above order, the Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

( MANISH PITALE ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

mta

Sandeep Babasaheb Chate and Others v. Shiv Vardhaman Sthanakwasi Jain Shrawak Sangh Guru Ganesh Nagar Jalna and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Babasaheb Chate and Others v. Shiv Vardhaman Sthanakwasi Jain Shrawak Sangh Guru Ganesh Nagar Jalna 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

Shashikant Subhash Deshmane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Machindra Ananda Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-2 Nashik Vs Sureshkumar Bhikamchand Jain (Huf) Jalgaon

Mohan Bhimrao More and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Shanta Subhash Sonawane @ Shanta Sampat Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Randhir Dinkarrao Deshmukh Vs Sumit Mulick and Others