Bombay High Court
Baliram Pandurang Salunke vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 December, 2018
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Mangesh S. Patil
(1) 17 wp 6651,17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
17 WRIT PETITION NO. 6651 OF 2017
BALIRAM PANDURANG SALUNKE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Panpatte V.S.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: Mr. Munde Sachin B. h/f. V.D. Gunale
...
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 03.12.2018 P.C. :-
Heard Mr. Panpatte the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. A very limited grievance is raised in the petition. It is submitted that in response to an advertisement in a daily newspaper dated 27.02.2017 for appointment of a Teacher, the petitioner submitted his claim and he was appointed as a 'Shikshan Sevak'. The copy of the appointment letter is placed on record at Exhibit-F. It is the submitted by Mr. Panpatte that the petitioner joined the service on 04.03.2017 and a proposal for grant of approval to the petitioner is submitted by the institute through Headmaster i.e. respondent no.4 to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded i.e. respondent no.2 on 05.04.2017. Mr. Panpatte then submitted that in spite of waiting for a considerable long period there is no decision on the proposal, as ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:40:35 ::: (2) 17 wp 6651,17 such the petitioner was left with no other choice but to approach this Court seeking direction to the authority to decide the proposal expeditiously.
3. In view of this limited grievance, we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of by issuing directions to respondent no.2 to decide the proposal dated 05.04.2017 as expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve weeks from the date of order of this Court. Needless to state that the respondent no.2-Education Officer to take a decision on the proposal on its own merits.
4. Mr. Panpatte invited our attention to an interim order dated 12.05.2017 passed by this Court. An apprehension was expressed by the petitioner that during the pendency of the proposal for approval, a surplus Teacher is likely to be appointed on the said post, on this apprehension the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 12.05.2017 directed the respondents to maintian status-quo. The interim order to continue till the decision of the Education Officer as directed by this Court in the present petition.
5. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.]
mub
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:40:35 :::