Bombay High Court
Thamdeo Krushnaji Likhar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 May, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp3731.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3731 OF 2005.
1. Thamdeo Krushnaji Likhar,
Aged about 27 years,
Occupation - Service, resident
of Rajendra Ward, Sindhi (R),
Ta. Seloo, Di. Wardha.
ig ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through it's Secretary, Department
of Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune.
3. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha,
Ta. Di. Wardha.
4. Nagar Shikshan Mandal Sindi (R),
through its Secretary, Office at Nagar,
Vidhyalay, Sindi (R) , Ta. Seloo
Di. Wardha.
5. Kesarimal Nagar Vidhyalay Sindi (R)
Through its Headmaster,
Sindi (R) Ta. Seloo, Di. Wardha. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:08:50 :::
Judgment wp3731.05
2
-----------------------------------
None for Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Mr. D.M. Kale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH , JJ.
DATED : MAY 06, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
None for petitioner and respondent nos. 4 and 5. Shri Kale,
learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 invites attention to the
order dated 27.07.2005, to submit that in view of the mandatory directions
to grant provisional approval to petitioner, and as there is no subsequent
grievance made by the petitioner, the challenge is rendered infructuous.
2. This Court has on 27.07.2005, after hearing the counsel found that
the course adopted by it in the earlier Writ Petition No. 63/2002 needed to
be followed. Accordingly, the respondent no.3 was directed to grant
provisional approval to the appointment of petitioner within a period of four
weeks. The approval has been made subject to final orders in the Writ
Judgment wp3731.05
Petition. Present petition was directed to be heard along with Writ Petition
No.1335/2000 and Writ Petition No. 63/2002. Those Writ Petitions are not
listed for hearing along with this matter.
3. The petitioner has after this direction dated 27.07.2005, not made
any grievance pointing out that the provisional approval has not been given
to him or then it has been refused. His employer has also not come to this
Court with any such grievance.
4. Petition has not been amended and therefore, it appears that the
petitioner is continuing on the basis of the provisional approval.
5. Facts show that his termination was questioned by the petitioner
before the School Tribunal where matter was compromised between the
parties. As the Education Officer was not party to that compromise, the
Education Officer did not agree to grant approval to his appointment.
6. In view of these developments and provisional approval given to
the petitioner on the strength of order dated 27.07.2005, we find that
challenge in present matter may have been rendered infructuous. Hence, we
direct the respondents not to cancel the approval of petitioner and not to
Judgment wp3731.05
proceed to terminate him merely because this petition is disposed of. The
approval given to him provisionally is made final.
7. Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
