Dismissed

Sadhana D/O Dhanraj Kadu v. the State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC11 Feb 2019WP/6185/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single order dismissing four connected writ petitions. The Court observed that prior orders declaring petitioners surplus were not challenged as they were passed after the petitions filed, thus closing no questions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; questions left open for separate challenge to later surplus orders.

Sadhana D/O Dhanraj Kadu Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

1102wp6185.17 + connected matters.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No.6185 of 2017 Sadhana d/o Dhanraj Kadu

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Writ Petition No.6186 of 2017

¶8

Ku. Ujwala d/o Rambhauji Bhomle Versus

¶9

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

¶10

Writ Petition No.6253 of 2017 Shri Chandrashekhar s/o Sudhakarrao Karale Versus

¶11

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

¶12

And

¶13

Writ Petition No.6254 of 2017

¶14

Pramod s/o Wasudeorao Hiware

¶15

Versus

¶16

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

¶17

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order

¶18

Ms Smita Dashputre, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶19

Shri V.A. Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶20

Shri A.P. Thakre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Writ Petition Nos.6185 and 6186 of 2017.

¶21

Shri R.B. Dhore, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Writ Petition Nos.6253 and 6254 of 2017.

¶22

¶23

1102wp6185.17 + connected matters.odt

¶24

Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Vinay Joshi, JJ. Dated : 11th February, 2019

¶25

The order dated 27-9-2017 and similar other orders of different dates passed by the Deputy Director of Education declaring the petitioners as surplus have not been challenged in the present petitions. The orders were passed after the petitions were filed.

¶26

In view of above, it is open for the petitioners to file a separate petition challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Education, if permissible, in accordance with law. All questions are left open.

¶27

With these observations, these petitions are dismissed.

¶28

Lanjewar

Sadhana D/O Dhanraj Kadu v. the State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhana D/O Dhanraj Kadu v. the State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education Thr. Secretary, Mumbai 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

Janardan S/O Gulabrao Moon Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation, Mumbai and Others

Ramkali D/O Shankarrao Samud and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Special Health Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

The Regional Manager,Fdc and 2 Ors. Vs Rambhau Bhakruj Borkar and Anor.

Shri Gaurishankar Tejram Chute Vs the State of Maha., Department of Sports and School Education, Mumbai Thr. Principal Sec. and Other

Surendra S/O Madhusudan Mor Thr. P.O.A. Shri. Regi K. Lukos S/O Kunjachan Lukos Vs the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur

Masood Ali Sadiq Ali Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola and Another