Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Arvind Digambar Bainwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 15 January, 2020

Author: Mangesh S. Patil

Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, Mangesh S. Patil

                                                                       908WP884.20.odt
                                          1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        908 WRIT PETITION NO. 884 OF 2020

                        ARVIND DIGAMBAR BAINWAD
                                 VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                     Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.M. Vibhute.
                       AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.P. Tiwari.



                        909 WRIT PETITION NO. 885 OF 2020

                        SANTOSH BHAURAO PUTWAD
                                 VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                    Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.M. Vibhute.
                   AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.B. Narwade



                        912 WRIT PETITION NO. 888 OF 2020

                       SHRIKRUSHNA BHOJU THAKUR
                                 VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                     Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. M.V. Salunke.
                     AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.G. Karhalekar.



                        917 WRIT PETITION NO. 893 OF 2020

                         SANDEEP BHIMRAO SAPKAL
                                 VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                  Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.M. Vibhute.
               AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. S.B. Narwade.
                Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. V.M. Chate.




::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020                      ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2020 23:31:30 :::
                                                                       908WP884.20.odt
                                         2

                        938 WRIT PETITION NO. 915 OF 2020

                   CHANDRAKANT PANDURANG WADULWAD
                                 VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                    Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.M. Vibhute.
                    AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.G. Karhalekar.



                        948 WRIT PETITION NO. 930 OF 2020

                        SAINATH DIGAMBAR BAINWAD
                                  VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                    Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.M. Vibhute.
                      AGP for Respondents : Mr. V.M. Kagne.



                        965 WRIT PETITION NO. 951 OF 2020

                      DATTATRAY RAJENDRA PANDHARE
                                 VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                    Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.M. Vibhute.
                      AGP for Respondents : Mr. V.M. Kagne.


                                     CORAM :     S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                                 MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
                                     DATED :     15.01.2020.


 PER COURT :

 .        It submitted that validation proceedings in respect of the tribe

claim of petitioners are pending with the scrutiny committee, the same are not decided.

::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2020 23:31:30 :::

908WP884.20.odt 3

2. Without issuing notices to petitioners, the respondents have placed petitioners on the supernumerary posts. In Writ Petition No.312/2020 the proposal has been submitted for the validation to the Committee on 26.06.2013, well within the time as contemplated under the Circular dated 30.07.2013.

3. As the impugned action is without notice to petitioners, we quash and set aside the impugned action.

4. In case, respondents want to take action against petitioners of placing petitioners on surplus or otherwise, then notice shall be issued to petitioners giving opportunity to show cause. In that event, petitioners can file reply and bring all the relevant facts to the notice of the respondent-Committee.

5. The Committee shall decide the validation proceedings expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months.

6. The petitioners shall appear before the Committee on 29.01.2020.

7. Writ Petitions accordingly disposed of. No costs. ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) S.P.C. ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2020 23:31:30 :::