Sudhir Jagannath Sarap vs The Divisional Commissioner And 3 ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1289 Bom

                                                    1




                                                                                         
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                
                           NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                               
    Writ Petition No. 2375 of 2004

    Petitioner             :        Sudhir son of Jagannath Sarap, aged about 36

                                    years, Occ: service, resident of Wadegaon, 




                                                    
                                    Tahsil Balapur, District Akola
                                    
                                    versus

    Respondents            :        1)  The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati

Division, Amravati

2) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education

And Training, Amravati Region, Amravati

3) Shri Shivaji Education Society, Gadge Nagar,

Amravati, through its Secretary

4) The Principal, Shri Shivaji Mahavidyalaya,

Chikhli, District Akola

Shri N. R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner

Smt Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 & 2

Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent no. 3

Coram : Smt Vasanti A. Naik And

V. M. Deshpande, JJ

Dated : 6th April 2016

Oral Judgment (Per Smt Vasanti A. Naik, J)

1. Heard. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the issue involved in

this writ petition was also involved in Writ Petition No. 1499 of 2003 and this Court

has, vide judgment dated 18th February 2016, directed the respondents to grant

approval to the appointment of the petitioner in that case. The learned counsel for

the petitioner seeks a similar order in this case as this case was directed to be tagged

along with the decided writ petition.

2. Smt Geeta Tiwari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing

for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Abhay Sambre, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent no. 3 do not dispute the statement made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

3. Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 18 th February

2016 in Writ Petition No. 1499 of 2003 and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the case, the respondent no. 2 isdirected to grant regular approval to the appointment

of the petitioner. In case any backlog exists, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 should take

necessary steps to clear the same.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Civil Application No. 723 of 2016 : In view of the disposal of writ

petition, the civil application stands disposed of.

              V. M. DESHPANDE, J                                       SMT VASANTI A. NAIK, J




                                                       
    joshi