Disposed

Jagdish Chintaman Khodake v. the Head Mistress Abhay Prathamik Vidyamandir Dhule and Others

Bombay HC25 Sept 2019WP/3576/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent institution to admit the petitioner and join duties by 30th September 2019, ordering absorption of past services and instructing the Education Officer to handle any future contingencies.

What did the court decide?

Relief was granted by directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to join duties and to consider past services.

Jagdish Chintaman Khodake Vs the Head Mistress Abhay… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 wp 3576.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3576 OF 2019

¶4

Jagdish Chintaman Khodake .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Head Mistress Abhay Prathamik Vidyamandir Dhule and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Shantanu Deshpande, Advocate h/f Shri Dr. R. J. Godbole, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Shri P. M. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Ms. Vaishali D. Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Smt. Geeta L. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 4.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2019.

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

. The communication is produced by the learned advocate for the Education Officer/respondent No. 3. It is submitted that, the respondent No. 1/institution is not allowing the petitioner to join.

¶12

According to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, the post is a new post meant for reserved category and the petitioner is from open category.

¶13

2 wp 3576.18

¶14

It would be the lookout of the Education Officer to accommodate the petitioner in a proper manner. Ms. Jadhav, the learned advocate for the Education Officer submits that, the respondent No. 1 was directed to absorb the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 is parent institution of the petitioner. It is the respondent No. 1 who is not absorbing the petitioner.

¶15

The respondent No. 1 shall allow the petitioner to join the duties with the respondent No. 1. Naturally, the past services rendered by the petitioner are required to be considered and counted.

¶16

Mr. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that, the petitioner may join on 30^th September, 2019.

¶17

After the petitioner joins with the respondent No. 1, if some further contingency arises, the Education Officer shall take care of the same and pass effective orders commensurate to the situation.

¶18

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶20

bsb/Sept. 19

Jagdish Chintaman Khodake v. the Head Mistress Abhay Prathamik Vidyamandir Dhule and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chintaman Khodake v. the Head Mistress Abhay Prathamik Vidyamandir Dhule 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

Vilas Ganpatrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Baliram Sambhaji Katkade through Lrs Bankat Baliram Katkade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prafulla Mukeshrao Deshmukh Vs Rashtriya Sahkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ltd. Chalisgaon through Chairman and Others

Vilas Kondiram Salave and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raosaheb Ambadas Gadkar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manisha Sabhakar Ubale Alias Manisha Sanjay Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others