Quashed

Sulakshana Sanjeevan Khanke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Aug 2021WP/6826/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed rejection of petitioner's transfer from unaided to aided post. Directed Education Officer to verify post availability for general category candidates and reconsider proposal ignoring reserved backlog safeguard, accepting management's undertaking to fill reserved posts.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of rejection order; remission of proposal to Education Officer for fresh consideration verifying general category post availability.

Sulakshana Sanjeevan Khanke Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

.. 1 ..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1054 WRIT PETITION NO.6826 OF 2021

¶4

SULAKSHANA SANJEEVAN KHANKE

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..Respondents

¶8

Dr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr A.R. Kale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Mr S.A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5

¶9

…

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
 R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 13-08-2021

¶12

PER COURT : -

¶13

1. The proposal seeking approval to the transfer of the petitioner

¶14

from unaided to aided post is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present
writ petition.

¶15

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the

¶16

learned AGP and the learned Counsel for the Institution.

¶17

3. The proposal of the petitioner is basically rejected on the

¶18

ground that backlog exists of reserved category candidates and the
Circular dated 28-06-2016. The Management has filed an
undertaking that the Management would take steps to fill in the

¶19

Gajanan

¶20

.. 2 ..

¶21

backlog of reserved posts. The said undertaking is accepted and
taken on record. The same is marked as “X” for identification.

¶22

4. The petitioner is transferred from unaided to aided post. It is stated that there are 14 posts of reserved candidates vacant and total vacant posts are 15. The petitioner is from general category.

¶23

5. The Education Officer ought to have considered whether the post is available for general category candidate.

¶24

6. The undertaking is filed by the Management that it would fill in the reserved category posts. The same is accepted by us.

¶25

7. We had also observed in the Judgment and order dated 04-07-2019 in Writ Petition No.1493 of 2018 with connected Writ

¶26

Petition, that some of the clauses of Circular dated 28-06-2016 are
erroneous.

¶27

8. In light of the above, we pass the following order.

¶28

(i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

¶29

(ii)The Education Officer shall reconsider the proposal seeking
approval to the transfer of the petitioner from unaided to aided post.

¶30

Gajanan

¶31

.. 3 ..

¶32

It shall verify whether the post is available for the general category
candidate on the aided post and if the same is available, then the
proposal shall not be rejected on the ground that backlog of reserved
category candidates exists.

¶33

(iii)The Education Officer shall also consider the Judgment of this
Court dated 04-07-2019 in Writ Petition No.1493 of 2018 with
connected writ petition.

¶34

(iv)The proposal shall be decided afresh in light of the
observations made above, preferably within four months.

¶35

9. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶36

[ R.N. LADDHA ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ]
 JUDGE JUDGE
...

¶37

Gajanan

Sulakshana Sanjeevan Khanke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulakshana Sanjeevan Khanke 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karim Maheboob Shah Vs the Union of India Thr the Secretary and Others

Sayyad Rashid Sayyad Noor Vs the Union of India Thr the Secretary and Others

Rashid Sha Kabir Sha Vs the Union of India and Others

Sulbha Dnyanoba Lokhande Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Deputy Commissioner Revenue and Others

Manoj Dattu Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Aasraji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others