The Division Bench adjourned the hearing of the writ petition regarding supernumerary posts, directing it to be heard by the Aurangabad Bench on 18th November 2022. No interim relief was granted at this stage.
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.
4-WP-11437-2022
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11437 OF 2022
Neeta Dinkar Vaity } Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. } Respondents
Mr. K. N. Kandekar for the petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for respondent no. 1 (State).
Mr. Rakesh Singh i/b. M. V. Kini and Co. for respondent no. 2.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2022
P.C.:
1. We had commenced hearing of this writ petition in the first session and had posted it for further hearing in the second session. At the start of the second session, Mr. Mendadkar, learned advocate appears and submits that more than 1500 matters, involving similar issue as the present writ petition, were scheduled to be heard today by a Division Bench presided over by Justice R. V. Ghuge at the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, but a notice had earlier been issued by the Registrar (Judicial) on 12th October 2022 that all such matters of “supernumerary posts” would now be posted for hearing on 18th November 2022 at 2.30 p.m.
1
4-WP-11437-2022
2. In view of such notice having been published and the instant writ petition being related to the matters before the Aurangabad Bench, we consider it appropriate to adjourn hearing of this writ petition and direct that the same shall also be heard along with the matters which are due to be listed now on 18th November 2022 before the Aurangabad Bench.
3. Registry is directed to transmit the records of this writ petition to the Aurangabad Bench for being heard along with other matters, as expeditiously as possible.
4. Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that recovery of loan, which the petitioner had obtained but not repaid, has been commenced and it is not true that recovery is being made from his salary for any other purpose.
5. In view of such statement, no interim relief is warranted at this stage. The petitioner shall be at liberty to pray for interim relief before the Aurangabad Bench, if occasion therefor arises.
6. Reply affidavit has been filed by Ms. Salunkhe, learned AGP for the respondent no. 1 (State). The same shall be retained with the records.
SALUNKE J V
Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2022.10.14 18:26:06 +0530
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
2
Neeta Dinkar Vaity
State of Maharashtra
Dipankar Datta
Madhav J. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
