Bombay High Court
Shirish Suryabhanji Waghmare And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, ... on 8 March, 2016
Author: V. M. Deshpande
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik, V. M. Deshpande
1/2 0803WP394.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 394 OF 2016
PETITIONERS :- 1. Shirish Suryabhanji Waghmare, Aged abt. 30
years, Occupation - Service, R/o -
Samudrapur, Post Samudrapur, Taluka -
Samudrapur, District - Wardha.
2. Ravindranath Tagore Bahu-uddeshiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Pulgaon, Through its
President - Shri Sudhakar A. Ghode, Aged
about 65 years, Ocupation - President of
ig Ravindranath Tagore Bahu-uddeshiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Pulgaon, R/o -
Thanegaon, Taluka - Karanja, District
Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department of Secondary & Higher
Secondary Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai
- 32.
2. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Wardha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. C.B.Dharmadhikari counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. H.D.Dubey, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 08.03.2016 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:11:06 :::2/2 0803WP394.16-Judgment
2. Though a couple of prayers are made in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly states that the grievance of the petitioners would stand redressed if this Court directs the respondent No.2-Education Officer (Secondary) to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner No.2 for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner No.1 on the post of Shikshan Sevak. It is stated that though the proposal was sent by the petitioner No.2 to the Education Officer (Secondary) in 2013 and 2015, the respondent No.2- Education Officer (Secondary) has not decided the proposal till date.
3. Shri Dubey, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2-Education Officer (Secondary), states that if the proposal is not decided till date, the respondent No.2-Education Officer (Secondary) would decide the same as early as possible.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed.
The respondent No.2-Education Officer (Secondary) is directed to decide the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner No.1 as early as possible and positively within a period of eight weeks. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:11:06 :::