Allowed

Kamalkishor Motiram Dhage v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Feb 2019WP/1809/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, to decide a pending appointment proposal submitted on 06.10.2014. The Court directed the respondent to decide the matter expeditiously within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Education Officer to decide the proposal submitted on 06.10.2014 within 12 weeks from the date of the order.

Kamalkishor Motiram Dhage Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 ) wp1809.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1809 OF 2019

¶4

KAMALKISHOR MOTIRAM DHAGE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr.Ramesh I. Wakade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.S.Dande, AGP for the respondent/State

¶8

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶9

DATED :08.02.2019

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

2.As the petitioner is pressing limited
prayer namely direction to the Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad/respondent No.3 to decide
the proposal, the petition is taken up for hearing
disposal at the admission stage.

¶13

3.Though various documents are placed on
record in support of the contention in the petition,
it may not be necessary for us to refer all these
details. Suffice to say that the petitioner was
possessing requisite qualification and in response
of advertisement submitted his application for

¶14

appointment. The petitioner was appointed in the
year 2014 and accordingly the institute submitted
proposal to the Education Officer on 06.10.2014 for
grant of approval to the appointment of the
petitioner. All the documents are placed on record
before the authority and till date as the proposal
is not decided the petitioner is not receiving his
rightful benefits.

¶15

4.Considering the limited grievance and
prayer the petition can be disposed of with
direction to respondent No.3 Education Officer to
decide proposal submitted to him on 06.10.2014 and
received by the Education Officer on 08.10.2014, as
expeditiously as possible, and not later than 12
weeks from the date of order of this Court, needless
to state on the merits of the proposal.

¶16

5.Learned AGP to communicate this order to
respondent No.3.

¶17

6.Parties to act upon authenticated copy of
this order.

¶18

VishalK/ wp1809.19

Kamalkishor Motiram Dhage v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalkishor Motiram Dhage 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

Sangita Dharamsing Ade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amin Raju Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sushila Purushottam Arsul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Beed through Authorized Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sanjay Kachru Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Subhash Nivrutti Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others