Partly allowed

Pravin Magan Koli v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Jan 2024WP/8067/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court bench allowed the petitioner's writ petition partially, quashing an earlier order that had adjourned the matter. The court granted conditional relief directing the employer to reconsider the petitioner's appointment for continuation of approval, as he had secured C-TET after the prescribed cut-off date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 22.03.2021 quashed; Reliefs granted for conditional continuation of appointment approval within 60 days subject to undertaking.

Pravin Magan Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:212-DB

¶2

903wp8067-21

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

903 WRIT PETITION NO. 8067 OF 2021

¶5

PRAVIN MAGAN KOLI

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. Sandip P. Rathod, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondents

¶9

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
 Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 5th January, 2024

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

1.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that this

¶12

Court [Coram: S.V. Gangapurwala, J. (as His Lordship then was) and R.

¶13

N. Laddha, J.] has passed an order on 28.07.2021 adjourning the
matter sine die. However, thereafter several Courts at the Principal
Seat, Nagpur Bench and at Aurangabad Bench have granted conditional
limited reliefs to the similarly situated persons.

¶14

2.The petitioner has cleared C-TET after the cut-off date
31.03.2019. He expressed an apology that though this incident of
passing C-TET occurred on 25th September, 2023, he inadvertently did
not amend the petition. Considering that it is a case of a teacher, that
we accept the oral request of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner to

¶15

amend the Petition for mentioning the passing of the C-TET.
Amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

903wp8067-21

¶18

3. Since various Benches of this Court have granted conditional

¶19

limited relief to such petitioners, we are passing the same order as

¶20

under:-

¶21

(A) This Petition is partly allowed.

¶22

(B) The impugned order dated 22.03.2021 is quashed and set aside.

¶23

(C) The Petitioner's proposal shall be considered by Respondent No.4- Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon , for sanction of the continuation of the approval of his appointment granted earlier, within a period of 60 days since he has now passed the C-TET after the cut-off date 31.03.2019.

¶24

(D) The Petitioner shall tender an affidavit undertaking in this Court and a Copy to the employer as well as to Respondent No.4/Education Officer within three weeks from today, stating therein that he would give up all service benefits if the Hon'ble Supreme Court concludes that TET/C-TET is compulsory and the candidates after the cut-off date are not entitled to be in employment.

¶25

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )

¶26

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶27

JPChavan

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Pravin Magan Koli v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Magan Koli 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Gorakhnath Bhanbahne Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Minakshi Narsingrao Sakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Santosh Prabhu Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Xyz Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Shantanu Bhayyasaheb Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sachin Eknath Shirsath Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others