Disposed

Santosh Nathrao Munde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Sept 2018WP/12054/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, to decide the petitioner's proposal for permanent appointment as Shikshan Sevak within eight weeks due to inordinate delay despite complete records being placed.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondent No.3 to decide the proposal submitted by the Management expeditiously and not later than eight weeks from the date of the order.

Santosh Nathrao Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

12054.17wp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12054 OF 2017

¶5

Santosh s/o Nathrao Munde, Age: 31 years, Occu: Service, r/o. Indapwadi, Tq. Parali (Vaijanath), District Beed ..PETITIONER VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶7

Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

¶8

Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed

¶9

Head Master, Vaidyanath Vidyalaya (Secondary Division), Parali (Vaijanath), District Beed

¶10

Vaidyanath Shikshan Sanstha, Parali (Vaijanath), District Beed Through its Secretary/President, C/o. Head Master, Vaidyanath Vidyalaya (Secondary Division), Parali (Vaijanath), District Beed ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner; Mr G. O. Wattamwar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Mr A. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶12

12054.17wp

¶13

(2)

¶14

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

¶15

DATE : 19th September, 2018

¶16

ORAL ORDER:

¶17

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition is circulated claiming urgency in view of the fact that the petitioner completed his tenure of three years as a 'Shikshan Sevak' and the proposal is submitted by respondent No.5 – Management to respondent No.3 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed on 18^th January, 2016. He further by inviting our attention to the said documents placed at Exh.'G' submits that the said document shows that along with the proposal all the requisite material was also placed before the authority, such as, appointment order of the petitioner, resolution of the management, earlier approval granted to the petitioner and the personal documents of the petitioner.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the proposal is submitted to the Education Officer (Secondary) in the year 2016, till filing of the petition, no decision was taken by the competent authority, as such, the petitioner was left with no choice but to approach this Court. He further submits that as respondent No.3 Education Officer failed to take any decision, the petitioner is subjected to a serious prejudice, namely, not

¶20

12054.17wp

¶21

(3)

¶22

receiving the salary, as such he prays for directions to respondent No.3 to decide the proposal within a stipulated period.

¶23

Perusal of the order sheet shows that notice to the respondents was issued by this Court on 5^th October, 2017. There is merit in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the proposal was submitted to respondent No.3 Education Officer (Secondary) in the year 2016, no decision is taken, as such, the authority is sitting idle over the proposal.

¶24

Considering this limited grievance raised in the petition, we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by issuing directions to respondent No.3 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, to decide the proposal submitted by respondent No.5 Management on 18^th January, 2016 as expeditiously as possible and not later than eight weeks from the date of the order of this Court. Needles to state that respondent No.3 Education Officer (Secondary) to decide the proposal on its own merit considering various decisions of this Court and the policy of the State Government.

¶25

With aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶26

(MANISH PITALE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶27

sjk

Santosh Nathrao Munde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Nathrao Munde 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

Devisingh Sandusingh Rajput Vs the Managing Director Marathwada Development Corporation Aurangabad

Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Aurangabad Vs M/S. Adinath Concast Pvt. Ltd.

Nirmal Software Services Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director D P Pathak Vs Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Aurangabad through Its Registrar and Another

Mansoor Sikander Pathan Patel and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Shivajirao Nagawade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Venkat Pandhari Dahiphale and Another Vs the Union of India and Others