A contempt petition was disposed of after the court found that the impugned order by the Education Officer complied with the court's earlier directions regarding the petitioner's appointment, finding the rejection did not rely on grounds of surplus teachers.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Contempt Petition No.532/2018
(( 1 ))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.532 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14901 OF 2017
Geetanjali d/o Pandurang Mule
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri R.I. Wakade, advocate for petitioner Shri S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for State Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent No.4
CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE AND MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2018.
ORAL ORDER :
Contempt Petition No.532/2018
(( 2 ))
the rejection may not be on the very ground that there are surplus teachers available who are to be absorbed.
Contempt Petition No.532/2018
(( 3 ))
liberty to avail appropriate remedy by approaching the competent forum for redressal of his grievance including any judicial forum.
(MANISH PITALE) JUDGE
(PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE
fmp/-
Geetanjali d/o Pandurang Mule
The State of Maharashtra
Prasanna B. Varale
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
