Shridhar S/O Vishwas Dhandare vs State Of Maha. Thr Secretary ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 846 Bom

    wp1359.16.odt                                                                              1
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH

                         WRIT PETITION  NO.  1359  OF  2016




                                                                                    
    Shridhar s/o Vishwas Dhandare,




                                                            
    aged 26 years, occupation - Nil,
    r/o Sahakar Nagar, Adarsh Colony,
    Tahsil & District - Bhandara.                          ...   PETITIONER

                  Versus




                                                           
    1. State of Maharashtra,
       through the Secretary, 
       General Administrative Building,




                                                
       Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
                              
    2. The Superintending Engineer,
       Irrigation Department,
       Division Nagpur,
                             
       Tahsil & District - Nagpur.

    3. The Assistant Superintending
       Engineer, Gose Khurd Lift Irrigation,
      

       Circle - Ambadi, Ambadi,
       Taluka & District - Bhandara.                       ...   RESPONDENTS
   



    Shri   Akshay   A.   Naik   with   Shri   Nikhil   Gaikwad,   Advocate   for   the





    petitioner.
    Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional GP for respondent No. 1.
    Shri S.G. Jagtap with Shri S.S. Godbole, Advocates for respondent Nos.
    2 & 3.
                             .....





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

MARCH 22, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard

finally with the consent of Shri Naik with Shri Gaikwad, learned

counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned Additional GP for

respondent No. 1 and Shri Jagtap with Shri Godbole, learned

counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

2. After hearing, we find that communication dated

16.12.2014 sent by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to the petitioner is not

satisfactory. The father of the petitioner expired while in service

when the petitioner was minor. His mother thereafter had sought

employment and vide communication dated 18.11.2008, her name

which was included in waiting list perhaps at Sr. No. 1, was

deleted. The petitioner, after attaining majority, has renewed the

request.

3. In this situation, in stead of adjourning the matter and

asking the petitioner to amend the petition or then directing the

respondents to place on record all the material, it will be in the

fitness of things if the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh

representation in accordance with law within a period of three

weeks from today.

4. If such a representation containing all the necessary

data is moved by the petitioner within a period of three weeks,

Respondent No. 2 shall consider it in accordance with law within

next eight weeks. If necessary an opportunity of hearing shall be

extended to the petitioner.

5. Needless to mention that all rival contentions of the

parties are kept open and can be gone into, if occasion therefor

arises in future.

6. It is clarified that the impugned communication dated

16.12.2014 shall not come in the way of such fresh consideration.

7. Thus, writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

                  JUDGE                                               JUDGE


                                       *******
    *GS.