Partly allowed

Mahesh Bharat Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Sept 2021WP/3995/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the refusal to grant approval for the petitioner's compassionate appointment, citing recruitment bans and unfinalized staffing patterns as grounds for denial, seeking quashing of the refusal order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing approval to the appointment was quashed and set aside; the proposal for approval was restored to the file.

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

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3995 OF 2020

¶4

MAHESH BHARAT GAIKWAD
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr.V.H.Dighe, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.S.S.Wagh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶7

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, JJ )

¶8

 DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2021

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

1. We have briefly heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides.

¶11

2. This is yet another case of refusal to grant approval to the appointment

¶12

of the petitioner who has already been appointed on compassionate basis.
The 2 grounds raised for refusal of approval are that there was a ban on
recruitment and that the staffing pattern for the Non Teaching Category was
not formalized.

¶13

3. We have extensively dealt with the above 2 grounds vide our judgment dated 11/08/2021 in WP No.4219/2018 filed by Smt.Yogital Nikam Vs. State of Maharashtra and others and WP No.163/2020 filed by Sachin Suryawanshi

¶14

khs/Sept. 2021/3995

¶15

Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶16

4.In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned
order dated 12/04/2019 passed by respondent No.2 refusing approval to the
appointment of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. The proposal
tendered by the Management, seeking approval to the petitioner’s
appointment, shall stand restored to the file of respondent No.2.

¶17

5.We direct the said Education Officer to study the judgment dated
11/08/2021 and since we have held that such ban or pendency of staffing
pattern would not apply to compassionate appointment, he shall proceed to
pass an order on the proposal for approval, on or before 30/09/2021.

¶18

 ( S.G. MEHARE, J. )

¶19

khs/Sept. 2021/3995

Mahesh Bharat Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Bharat 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

Dilip Venkatrao Boienar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajit Madhukarrao Gavhane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akash Dilip Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Savitribai Ram Gajare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nagnath Dhondbarao Deshmukh and Another Vs the Maharashtra State Board of Wakf and Others

Deepak Nanasaheb Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others