The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the delay in approval of the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher, directing the respondent to decide the proposal within four months.
Direction to the Education Officer to decide the pending appointment proposal on merits within four months.
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.
1 928-WP-1443-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1443 OF 2020
SHUBHANGI BHAUSAHEB RAHINJ …PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
Mr A.N. Kakade, Advocate for Petitioner Mr A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2020
PER COURT :
2 928-WP-1443-2020
decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
mta
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the pending proposal for appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher should be disposed of by directing a time-bound decision.
Whether the Education Officer shall decide the pending proposal within a specific period.
The appropriate remedy for the delay in approval of the petitioner's appointment proposal.
Shubhangi Bhausheb Rahinaj
The State of Maharashtra
Others
S. V. Gangapurwala
Shrikant D. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
