Dismissed

Sangita Ramesh Koli @ Sangita Hemendra Sapkale v. Education Officer (Sec), Zp Jalgaon and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2018WP/1613/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad directed the Zilla Parishad committee to decide the petitioner's pending tribe claim validation proceeding within six months and prohibited the employer from taking adverse action against her during this period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respond to decide validation proceeding within six months and restraint on adverse action pending decision.

Sangita Ramesh Koli @ Sangita Hemendra Sapkale Vs… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 1613.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1613 OF 2012

¶4

Sangita Ramesh Koli @
Sangita Hemendra Sapkale

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1
and 2.

¶11

Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 - served.

¶12

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATE: 27th August, 2018

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1.Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

¶15

petitioner submits that way back in the year –

¶16

2011, directions were given to decide the
validation proceeding in respect of the tribe
claim of the petitioner. The same is not yet
decided.

¶17

2 wp 1613.12

¶18

2.This Court on 23.02.2012 had granted interim
relief in terms of prayer clause 'C'. It is
submitted that the petitioner is receiving the
salary.

¶19

3.Considering that the validation proceeding is

¶20

still pending, we pass following order.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

I]Respondent no. 3 – committee shall
decide the validation proceeding in respect
of the tribe claim of the petitioner
expeditiously and preferably within a period
of six (6) months from the date of appearance
of the petitioner.

¶23

II]The petitioner shall appear before
the committee on 10.09.2018.

¶24

III]Till the committee decides the

¶25

validation proceeding, the respondents –
employer shall not take adverse action
against the petitioner only on the ground
that validation proceeding is pending.

¶26

3 wp 1613.12 IV] Respondent nos. 4 and 5 may take further course of action depending upon the judgment that will be delivered by the committee in the validation proceedings.

¶27

4.Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
No costs.

¶28

[S. M. GAVHANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶29

marathe

Sangita Ramesh Koli @ Sangita Hemendra Sapkale v. Education Officer (Sec), Zp Jalgaon and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Ramesh Koli @ Sangita Hemendra Sapkale v. Education Officer (Sec), Zp Jalgaon 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

Smt. Shaikh Anjum Ara Hasan Vs Halque-a-Dawanaik Edu Society Thru Chairman and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vijay G Burande

Aatmaram Dashrath Lokhande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Hameed Shaikh Hyder and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-1, Nashik Vs Ramrao Sitaram Patil (Huf) and (Individual)

Yogesh Jaikishan Talod and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.