Dismissed

Varsha Vasant Mhetre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Jun 2019RA/73/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a review application filed by a teacher challenging her declaration as surplus. The court rejected the claim, noting no error in interpreting the relevant Government Resolution and treating future vacancies as a separate proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The review application was disposed of. No costs awarded to the parties.

Varsha Vasant Mhetre Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

DB902

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

902 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO.73 OF 2019

¶4

IN WP/13936/2018

¶5

VARSHA VASANT MHETRE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

...

¶9

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Patil Hanmant V.
AGP for Respondents State: Mr. S. B. Yawalkar
Advocate for Respondents 3 to 5: Mr. U. B.Bondar

¶10

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
 DATE:21st June, 2019

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1. The petitioner seeks review of the order dated

¶13

16th April,2019. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the

¶14

applicant/petitioner submits that seven persons joined
on the same day in the school and the petitioner was
alone declared surplus. According to the learned

¶15

Advocate, the petitioner ought not have been
transferred/declared surplus as per the Government
Resolution dated 18.05.2011. The learned counsel
submits that now one post has become vacant and
another will became vacant in July, 2019 in the said
school.

¶16

2. We have also heard learned A.G.P.

¶17

1/2

¶18

DB902

¶19

3. We have gone through the interpretation of
Government Resolution dated 18.05.2011. We do not find
any error in the interpretation of the said G.R. The
contention that one post has become vacant and another
will became vacant in July, 2019 in the said school
would be a subject matter of another cause of action
and the petitioner would agitate the same in a separate
proceeding.

¶20

4. The review application is accordingly disposed

¶21

of. No costs.

¶22

(A. M.DHAVALE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶23

JPC

¶24

2/2

Varsha Vasant Mhetre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varsha Vasant Mhetre 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs Ajinkya Sharad Govekar

Dipak Gangadharrao Sul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Bahu Sevabhavi Sanstha Soyegaon Dist Aurangabad Thru President M B Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahendra Dattatraya Nikalje Vs the Zonal Manager Appellate Authoritiy Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others

The Union of India and Others Vs Sahakar Maharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Smrutnagar Dist Ahmednagar

The Zilla Parishad Beed the Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others