Disposed

Asha Chinila Upadhyey v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC26 Apr 2018WP/2662/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions with identical fact patterns by following a previous Division Bench decision. The court directed the State Government to reconsider the proposal regarding the relaxation of the upper age limit for petitioners' employment within three months, which had been previously rejected by the State.

What did the court decide?

Quashed letters dated 15.9.2017 and 26.10.2017; directed State to re-consider relaxation of upper age limit proposal within 3 months.

Asha Chinila Upadhyey Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

{1}

¶2

984 sr.no..odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2650 OF 2018

¶5

SHAIKH LUKMAN SHAIKH ISMAIL VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 2653 OF 2018

¶9

SHAIKH SULTAN SHAIKH ISMAIL

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶12

WITH

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 2655 OF 2018

¶14

SANJAY VASANTRAO JOSHI VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶16

WITH

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 2661 OF 2018

¶18

SHIVLAL PITAMBAR PATIL

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶21

WITH

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 2662 OF 2018

¶23

ASHA CHINILA UPADHYEY

¶24

VERSUS

¶25

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶26

WITH

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO. 2663 OF 2018

¶28

SULOCHANA GANESH SONAWANE VERSUS

¶29

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

{2}

984 sr.no..odt

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2018

¶34

SHAIKH KARIM SHAIKH GULAB VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶35

WITH

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO. 2665 OF 2018

¶37

AADHAR GOMTU WANI VERSUS

¶38

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶39

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Girish Nagori AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.S. Dande

¶40

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶41

DATE : 26^th April, 2018

¶42

PER COURT:-

¶43

1] Facts giving rise to the instant group of petitions are identical in all respects with the facts giving rise to a group of petitions, bearing W.P. No. 14052 of 2017 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 14^th February, 2018. As such, the instant petitions can also be disposed of with the identical directions as have been issued in the decided group of petitions. It is not a matter in dispute that the proposal by the Municipal Council for relaxation of age limit in respect of the petitioners/employees has been turned down by the State by virtue of the order dated 26.10.2017. The Division Bench while dismissing the group of petitions has referred to above and directed quashment of the letter dated 15.9.2017, and directed the State to re-consider the proposal on the relaxation of upper age limit afresh. Consequential letter dated 26.10.1997 has also been quashed by the

¶44

984 sr.no..odt

¶45

{3}

¶46

High Court and the communication dated 15.9.2017 passed by the State is quashed and set aside. The State is directed to re-consider the proposal about relaxation of upper age limit afresh.

¶47

2] The State Government shall take decision afresh on the proposal tendered by the Municipal Corporation regarding relaxation of upper age limit after considering all relevant aspects as observed in the judgment delivered in the decided matters , as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months from today. The consequential letter dated 26.10.2017 also stands quashed and set aside. The petitioners are entitled to represent themselves before the authorities.

¶48

3] With these observations and directions, writ petitions are stand disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall no orders as to costs.

¶49

grt/-

Asha Chinila Upadhyey v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Chinila Upadhyey v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Ramkishan Komatwar Vs the Block Development Officer Kallamb and Others

Vitthal Sakharam Konapure and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Deepshobha Sevabhavi Sanstha Khandali through Its Secretary P S Khomane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Sultan Shaikh Ismail Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shivlal Pitambar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Aadhar Gomtu Wani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another