Court rejected a writ petition challenging pension and appointment decisions made during the operation of an interim order, ruling that such factual questions preclude writ intervention.
Writ petition rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 519.2012wp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.519 OF 2012
Shri Pandharinath s/o Sakharam Sonawane .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents
Shri S.V. Dixit, Advocate for petitioner
Smt Vaishali S Choudhari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents/State
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH & P. R. BORA, JJ.
Date : January 5, 2018
PER COURT :
2 519.2012wp
Headmaster also is a matter of administration in the given facts and circumstances. No illegitimacy can be attributed to them in the same. Besides, it appears that petition raises questions of facts.
P.R. BORA SUNIL P. DESHMUKH JUDGE JUDGE
ggp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging pension proposal and appointment made during the operation of an interim order should be entertained.
Whether the court should intervene in administrative decisions taken by the institution management despite interim orders.
Shri Pandharinath s/o Sakharam Sonawane
The State of Maharashtra
Sunil P. Deshmukh
P. R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
