Partly allowed

Vishwanath Kisan Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Sept 2021WP/1266/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It quashed the impugned order partially and directed the Block Education Officer to rectify deficiencies in the proposal and re-submit it for consideration within the specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order to the extent of clause (2) and directed the Block Education Officer to ensure the proposal is completed with no deficiencies and re-submitted by 30-10-2021 for consideratio

Vishwanath Kisan Gaikwad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

906-WP-1266-20.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1266 OF 2020

¶4

VISHWANATH KISAN GAIKWAD

¶5

VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Laxman H. Kawale AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. S. B. Yawalkar Advocate for Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Y. M. Kshirsagar Thorat

¶7

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND

¶8

S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 29^th SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer

¶12

clause ‘B’ and ‘C’ as under :-

¶13

“B) By issuing writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ orders or directions, the order/letter dated 24.6.2016 issued by the respondent No.4, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶14

C) By issuing writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ orders or directions, the respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of selection grade to the petitioner as per the proposal submitted by respondent No.3 since 1.1.1997.”

¶15

We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned advocates for the respective sides. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24-06-2016, it does not call for any debate that when respondent No.4 concluded that the proposal had certain deficiencies, he should have called upon the Block Education Officer

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

906-WP-1266-20.odt

¶18

to remove the deficiencies and re-submit a proposal complete in all respects, rather than observing that there are deficiencies and reject the proposal.

¶19

In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order, to the extent of clause (2) is quashed and set aside. We direct respondent No.3 to ensure that the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nanded, completes the entire proposal by removing all deficiencies and re-tenders the same to respondent No.4, complete in all respects, on or before 30-10-2021. Thereafter, respondent No.4 shall consider the record and the procedure laid down in law, and decide the said proposal by passing a reasoned order, on or before 30-11-2021.

¶20

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶21

SVH

¶22

2 of 2

Vishwanath Kisan Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Kisan Gaikwad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yuvraj Fulsing Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Sakharam Pawar and Others Vs Janlaxmi Sugar Products (Nitali) Pvt. Ltd. through Its Resolution Professional and Others

Shridhar Sadashiv Sakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mukta Anand Kendre Vs Government of India through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Another

Swati Raosaheb Latpate Vs the Governmetn of India through Its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Others

Mukta Anand Kendre Died Thr Lrs Anand Devidas Kendre Vs Government of India and Another