Dismissed

Venkat Ramchandra Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Nov 2019CP/205/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench held that since the Education Officer had passed a decision on the petitioner's grievance, the earlier order of the Division Bench was complied with. Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to challenge the July 2017 decision via appropriate steps if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach appropriate authority to challenge the order dated 31st July, 2017.

Venkat Ramchandra Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.205 OF 2019
IN

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.7439 OF 2005

¶4

Venkat s/o Ramchandra Kamble,
Age : 56 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Acharya Vinoba Bhave
Primary School, Tq. Udgir,
District LaturPETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

2. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur division, Latur, District Latur

¶8

3. Dr. Vaishali Jamdar, Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, District Latur

¶9

4. Acharya Vinoba Bhave Education Society, Latur, District Latur, through its Secretary Shri Madhukar s/o Kishanrao Ekurekar, Age : 58 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Latur, District Latur

¶10

5. The Head Master, Acharya Vinoba Bhave Primary School, Latur, Dist. Latur RESPONDENTS

¶11

¶12

CP205-2019

¶13

Mr. Kiran M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Addl.G.P.for the respondent/State
Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶14

CORAM :PRASANNA B. VARALE
 AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶15

DATE :4th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶16

PER COURT:

¶17

Heard Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, learned counsel for

¶18

the petitioner and Mr. U.B. Bondar, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 3 – Education Officer
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur.

¶19

2.On a grievance that the order of this Court
dated 19th December, 2016 is not complied with, simple
notice was issued to respondent No.3.

¶20

3.Perusal of the order of this Court dated 19th

¶21

December, 2016 clearly shows that the Division Bench of
this Court, on the backdrop of grievance of the
petitioner with regard to the salary not being paid to
him since the year 2005 till the date of approval,
directed the petitioner to approach the Education
Officer and in turn, the Education Department was to
pass an appropriate order on the application of the

¶22

¶23

CP205-2019

¶24

petitioner on its own merit.

¶25

4.Mr. U.B. Bondar, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 invited our attention to the copy of the
order dated 31st July, 2017, passed by the Education
Officer (Primary), which is produced on record as
Exhibit-R1. It reveals from the said order that on

¶26

hearing the parties, including the petitioner, one Smt.
Gaikwad Kalawati Nagorao, Headmistress of the school and
Shri Jadhav Chandrakant Santram, clerk, the Education
Officer by assigning the reasons passed the order.

¶27

5.It is the submission of Mr. K.M. Nagarkar,
learned counsel for the petitioner that the Education
Officer committed an error in passing the order dated
31st July, 2017, in which the Education Officer has taken
contrary stand.

¶28

6.Be that as it may. As the order is passed by
the Education Officer by taking a decision and the
grievance of the petitioner of not complying the order
of Division Bench of this Court dated 19th December,
2016, whereby the Education Officer was directed to take
a decision, stands redressed, we see no reason to pass
any further order in the present Contempt Petition as

¶29

4 CP205-2019

¶30

the order of this Court is now duly complied with. In
case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31st
July, 2017 passed by the Education Officer, he is at
liberty to take appropriate steps to challenge the said
order, if so advised. The Contempt Petition is
accordingly disposed of.

¶31

[ANIL S. KILOR]
JUDGE

¶32

[PRASANNA B. VARALE] JUDGE

¶33

npj/CP205-2019

Venkat Ramchandra Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkat Ramchandra Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Ajay Panditrao Nandre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhukar Vyankatrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dagubai Kisan Gaikwad and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Galib Shaikh Vahid and Others Vs Ashok Shirse and Another