Partly allowed

Harshali Tukaram Kolhe v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2018WP/13846/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-bench judgment that disposed of multiple writ petitions by issuing interim orders directing Education Officers to decide pending employment proposals within two months or communicate existing decisions to petitioners, keeping merit contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Directing Education Officers to decide employment proposals within two months or communicate existing decisions immediately.

Harshali Tukaram Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

sl512group.doc

ssp

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.13838 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.12377 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.12379 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13821 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13839 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13842 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13843 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13844 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13845 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13846 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13847 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13848 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13849 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13850 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.13851 OF 2018,
WRIT PETITION ST.NO.26975 OF 2018.

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memorandam of Coram,
appearances, Court’s ordersCourt’s or Judge’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders

¶8

Mr.Sugandh B. Deshmukh I/b Mr.Rajaram Deshmukh for
the Petitioner in all petitions
Mr.P.P.More, AGP for the Respondent-State

¶9

CORAM :A.S.OKA AND

¶10

 SANDEEP K. SHINDE,JJ.
DATE :DECEMBER 11, 2018

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Not on board. Taken on board.

¶13

1 Though time was granted till today to the learned AGP to take instructions, he has not received any instruction.

¶14

¶15

sl512group.doc

¶16

2Considering the limited prayers
made in these petitions, we dispose of
the petitions by passing the following
order:

¶17

(I) If proposals submitted to grant
permanent approval to the employment of
the petitioners is not decided by the
concernedEducationOfficers
(Secondary) of Zilla Parishads, the
same shall be decided as expeditiously
as possible and in any event, within a
period of two months from today;

¶18

(II) If the proposals are already
decided, the decisions taken thereon
shall be immediately communicated to
the petitioners;

¶19

(III) All contentions on merits are
kept open.

¶20

(SANDEEP K.SHINDE,J.)

¶21

(A.S.OKA,J.)

Harshali Tukaram Kolhe v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshali Tukaram Kolhe v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

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

Prakash Padmakar Gharat Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors.

M/S. I. G. Petrochemicals Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rasul Uttal Setsandhi Vs the Executive Enineer Minor Irrigation (Local Level), Division Solapur and Ors.

Balram Bhimrao Vaidya Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Vilas Dattu Shirke and Ors. Vs the Grocery Markets and Shops Board for Greater Bombay,Thane and Raigad and Anr.

Ananda Suresh Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.