Dr. Ajay Joseph S/O William Joseph vs State Of Mah. Thr. The Secty. And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2814 Bom

WP  5885/11                                               1                          Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 5885/2011
Dr.Ajay Joseph S/o William Joseph,
Aged about 60 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Plot No.164, Giripeth, Nagpur.                                              PETITIONER

                                      .....VERSUS.....
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through the Secretary,
      Department of Higher Education,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

2.    Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
      Nagpur University, Nagpur
      Through its Registrar,
      Amravati Road, Nagpur-01.

3.    The Joint Director of Higher Education,
      Nagpur Division, Old Morris College
      Building, Near Zero Mile Stone,
      Nagpur-10.

4.    People's Education Society, Nagpur,
      A Society registered under the
      provisions of the Societies Registration Act,
      through its Chairman/President,
      Office located within the premises of
      P.W.S. College, Kamptee Road, Nagpur.

5.    People's Education Society's College,
      Through its Principal, P.W.S. College,
      Kamptee Road, Nagpur.                                                       RESPONDENTS

   Shri R.V. Shiralkar, counsel holding for Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the
                                       petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 3.


                                       CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                     A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

                                                               6                  JUNE,     2017.
                                        DATE        :            TH

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that

the petitioner would be entitled to be continued in service till he attains

WP 5885/11 2 Judgment

the age of 62 years in view of the Government Resolution, dated

05.03.2011.

Though we had issued Rule in the writ petition, we had not

granted any interim relief in favour of the petitioner, with the result that

the petitioner did not continue in service after he retired on attaining the

age of superannuation on completion of sixty years. During the pendency

of the writ petition, the proposal for considering whether the petitioner

could be granted extension in service was decided by the performance

review committee of the university and the proposal pertaining to the

petitioner was rejected after recording reasons. In view of the subsequent

development as also the fact that the petitioner did not continue in

service after he attained the age of sixty years, the cause for filing the writ

petition is rendered infructuous.

In view of the order passed by the Performance Review

Committee that is not challenged by the petitioner as also the fact that the

petitioner did not continue in service after attaining the age of

superannuation on completion of sixty years, the writ petition is

dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

              JUDGE                                           JUDGE

APTE