Allowed

Shri. Gagan Phirturam Jaiswar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2018WP/4641/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A minority institution challenged the rejection of a proposal appointing a petitioner under pet. No.1 as a Shikshan Sevak. The court held that a similar question was already settled in WL Shelkar, disposed of the petition by quashing the impugned order and directing the respondent to reconsider the appointment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to reconsider the proposal afresh within four weeks.

Shri. Gagan Phirturam Jaiswar and Anr. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

14 wp 4641.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4641 of 2017

¶4

Shri Gagan Phirtura Jaiswar and anr. versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

…..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar i/b. Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar, advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the State.

¶10

Mr. A. S. Rao, advocate for the respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.SADHANA JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 4^th APRIL, 2018.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

Heard learned counsel and learned AGP appearing for the respective parties.

¶14

By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23^rd February, 2016, passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner No.1 as Shikshan Sevak in the petitioner No.2-Institution. There is no dispute that the petitioner No.2 is a minority institution.

¶15

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the averments made in the petition as also the judgment dated 2^nd September, 2013 passed by the Division Bench in the case of Parbhani Education Society, Parbhani

¶16

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

¶17

14 wp 4641.17.doc

¶18

versus the State of Maharashtra in writ petition No.3707 of 2013,

¶19

we are of the view that the question involved in this petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide order dated 31^st March, 2016 passed in the case of Vinod Laxman Shelkar and anr. versus the

¶20

State of Maharashtra and anr. in writ petition No.2207 of 2016 . In

¶21

view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the petition in the following terms:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside;

¶24

ii) The respondent No. 2 is directed to consider afresh the proposal regarding approval to the appointment of the petitioner No.1 as Shikshan Shevak in the petitioner No.2- Institution in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶25

iii) The respondent No. 2 shall take decision as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

All concerned shall act upon a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry of this Court.

¶28

(SMT. SADHANA JADHAV, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶29

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Shri. Gagan Phirturam Jaiswar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Gagan Phirturam Jaiswar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanesh Vishnu Gharat Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Sadashiv Jangnnath Dode Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, and Ors.

Vikas Laxman Karande Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Shaikh Sohel Mohammad Khalil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Education Dept and Ors.

Mrs. Changuna Pandurang Kuchekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Woman and Child Welfare Dept and Ors.

Abdul Latif Mohmmed Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.