Iftekhar Ahmad Noor Ahmand vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6861 Bom

                                                                           6.wp.1734.2021.odt
                                            (1)

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                               WRIT PETITION NO.1734/2021

 1.       Iftekhar Ahmad Noor Ahmad,
          Aged about 55 years,
          Occ: Service, R/o Near Lalmiya Darga,
          BagbanPura, Washim,
          Tq and Dist Washim.                               ..... PETITIONER

                                      // VERSUS //

 1.     State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sport Department
        Mantralaya Extension House, Mumbai - 400032.

 2.     Deputy Director of Education (Secondary),
        Amravati Division, Amravati.

 3.     Education Officer (Secondary)
        Zilla Parishad Washim.

 4.     Abdul Gaffar Abdul Sattar,
        Aged about 52 years,
        Occ.: Service, R/o Lalmiya Darga,
        Beldar Pura Washim, Tq and Dist Washim.                   .... RESPONDENTS

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri Amol S. Deshpande, for petitioner.
          Shri A. S. Fulzele, Addl. G. P. for respondent nos.1 to 3.
          Ms Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for respondent no.4.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                  CORAM :     SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                              AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 29/04/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

6.wp.1734.2021.odt

1] Hearing is conducted through Video Conferencing and all

the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality is proper.

2] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. G. P.,

who appears by waiving notice for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Ms

Radhika Bajaj, learned counsel for respondent no.4, who also appears by

waiving notice.

3] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

4] The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1) and it is

directed that respondent no.3 shall decide the application dated 28 th

December 2020 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and

in any case within eight weeks from the date of the order with liberty to

respondent no.4 to participate in the proceedings.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

Sarkate.