Petitioner claimed entitlement to join an educational institution. The court held that respondents allowed the petitioner to join. The respondent had to submit a proposal for appointment approval within six weeks, followed by a decision within another six weeks.
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 wp 9585.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9585 OF 2015
Madhukar Dattatray Petkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Pandit S. Anerao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are served.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATE : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2018.
FINAL ORDER :
. Though respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are served, none appears for respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
2 wp 9585.15
[S. M. GAVHANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Sept. 18
Digitally signed by Bhalchandra Bhalchandra Sudhakar Sudhakar Bodke Bodke Date: 2018.09.11 10:51:30 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to join the respondent institution and obtain appointment.
The procedural timeline for the respondent authority to approve the petitioner's appointment.
Madhukar Dattatray Petkar
The State of Maharashtra
Gangapurwala
Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
