This single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition concerning a delay in an appointment proposal. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner to decide the proposal filed in 2013 without deciding the merits of the claim.
Directions to respondent No.4 to decide the proposal dated 24.05.2013 submitted on 31.05.2013.
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 ) wp1326.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1326 OF 2019
UMESH PADAM RATHOD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.Dhanaji S. Kudale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.S.Dande, AGP for the respondents/State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :26.02.2019
P.C. :-
.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.Considering the limited grievance raised in the
petition, we are of the opinion that the petition can be
disposed of at the stage of admission even though the
petitioner is approaching this Court after considerable
length period. The petitioner was possessing the
requisite academic qualification as such in response to
advertisement issued by respondent No.5 for appointment
of teachers, the petitioner submitted his claim and the
petitioner was appointed in the year 2013. Copy of the
appointment order is placed on record at Exh.D.
Respondent No.5 submitted proposal for grant of approval
to the appointment of the petitioner to respondent No.4
( 2 ) wp1326.19
Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Office, Jalgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon on 24.05.2013. Copy of covering letter is
placed on record at Exh.E. The petitioner has also placed
on record the list of the documents submitted alongwith
the proposal. Learned counsel submitted that the
petitioner was approaching the authority time and again
and only oral assurances were given and subsequently
orally it was informed to the petitioner that the
petitioner's proposal cannot be considered. The
petitioner was then came across the Government Resolution
dated 24.08.2018 wherein a reference is made to the
decision of this Court at principal seat and also the
State Government in its discretion extended the period
for considering the proposals. Thus, the petitioner is
approaching this Court seeking directions to the
authorities to decide the proposal submitted before it.
3.In view of above referred facts, we dispose of
the petition with direction to respondent No.4 to decide
the proposal dated 24.05.2013 received by him on
31.05.2013 through respondent No.5, needless to state on
merits of the proposal.
( 3 ) wp1326.19
4.With the above directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]
VishalK/ wp1326.19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can direct the respondent authority to decide a pending appointment proposal filed in 2013.
Whether the petitioner's claim for appointment as a teacher despite lack of proposal approval warrants judicial intervention.
Umesh Padam Rathod
The State of Maharashtra
Prasanna B. Varale
S.M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court