Vighnaharta Gramin Vikas ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1935 Bom

                                                    1                                     wp783-15

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                               
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                       
                                   Writ Petition No.783 of 2015
               Vighnaharta Gramin Vikas Sanstha, yavatmal  Vs. State of Mah. & Ors. 
                                             WITH
                                  Writ Petition No.5646 of 2013
           Arvind s/o Vithalrao Pandhare  Vs. Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Ltd., Nagpur. 




                                                                      
    __________________________________________________________________________
    Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
    appearances, Court's orders or directions               Court's or Judge's orders.
    and Registrar's Orders.




                                                        
                                        ig        CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                             P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 27th April, 2016.

Heard Advocate Kilor for petitioner and learned AGP for State of Maharashtra, Regional Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Social Welfare

Officer. Advocate Chopde appears for respondent no.

4 who is petitioner in W.P. No. 5646/2013.

Petitioner in W.P. No. 783/2015 has come up with specific case that the procedure to obtain

previous approval before advertising a vacancy has been evolved in 2012 and in 2010 when petitioner no. 2 was appointed, there was no such procedure.

Petitioner no.2 appears to be working with petitioner no. 1 and against vacancy occupied by petitioner no. 2 Tribal Development Department has shown Ashok as surplus employee. In W.P. No. 5646/2013 filed by him for interim direction, he

2 wp783-15

must be getting regular salary. In W.P. No. 783/2015

this court has restrained respondents from taking any

coercive step.

In this situation, it is necessary to find out whether in 2010 there was any procedure which

obliged petitioner no.1 management to obtain previous approval of Tribal Development Department or its offices before effecting direct recruitment.

Though there is specific challenge in this respect in

W.P. No. 783/2015, reply filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 therein does not show denial on oath.

In this situation, we direct the respondent nos. 1 to 4 o file their reply, if any, within six weeks.

List for further consideration on 20th June,

2016.

                                               JUDGE                             JUDGE
    Hirekhan