Anil Shankarrao Pandhey vs State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 1024 Bom

    Judgment                                                             wp4397.02


                                        1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                      WRIT PETITION  NO.   4397  OF 2002.

        Anil s/o Shankarrao Pandhey
        resident of 3-Income Tax Colony, 
        Rana Pratap Nagar,  Nagpur.                ...     PETITIONER.


                                     VERSUS 


1.      State of Maharashtra,
        through the Secretary, Higher
        and Technical Education Department, 
        Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.      The Director of Technical Education
        Maharashtra State, 3-Mahapalika Marg, 
        Mumbai.

3.      The Principal,
        Institute of Diploma in Pharmacy,
        Wanadongri, Hingna Road, 
        Nagpur.                                       ...     RESPONDENTS
                                                                       .

                            ---------------------------------
                  Shri A. Parchure, Advocate for Petitioner.
              Shri S. Kadu, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
        Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
                           ----------------------------------

                                     CORAM :    B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 25 2018

Judgment wp4397.02

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner, a teacher in respondent no.3 Private Institute,

was sought to be transferred to a Government establishment by an

order dated 29.11.2002, issued by respondent no.2 Director of

Technical Education.

3. This Court has on 05.12.2002 while issuing notice for

final disposal in the matter, stayed that order. This interim order

continues to operate even today.

4. It is not in dispute that petitioner has already reached his

age of superannuation and retired.

5. In this situation, we make Rule absolute in terms of

interim orders granted on 05.12.2002 and dispose of the Writ

Petition. No costs.

                         JUDGE                            JUDGE

Rgd.