Chhaya Ajay Dhole vs Deputy Director Of Education, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10546 Bom

                                                                 9.wp2763.2021.odt
                                             1/2



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2763 OF 2021

  Chhaya Ajay Dhole
  Aged 56 years,
  Occ. Service, R/o. Ram Krishna
  Nagar, Behind Panchyat Samiti,
  Digras, Tq. Digras,
  Dist. Yavatmal.                                .... PETITIONER

                                 // VERSUS //

  1. Deputy Director of Education,
  Amravati Division, Amravati,
  Tq. and Dist. Amravati.

  2. Education Officer (Secondary)
  Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal (Primary),
  Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal

  3. Dinbai Education Society,
  through its President, Address - Opposite
  to rural Hospital, Digras,
  Tq. and Digras, Dist. Yavatmal.

  4. Mohanbai Girls School,
  through its Head Master,
  Address-Opposite to rural
  Hospital, Digras, Tq. And Digras,
  Dist. Yavatmal                                 .... RESPONDENTS

  Mr. A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
  Ms. N.P. Mehta, AGP for respondents/State.
  ________________________________________________________________

                                CORAM        : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                               ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: S.B. Shukre, J.]

1. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 &

9.wp2763.2021.odt

2, who appears by waiving notice. Notice to respondent Nos.3 & 4 is

not issued, as no relief has been claimed against them. The relief

claimed here is only against the respondent No.2 and it is of limited

nature.

2. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The

matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for

the parties.

3. The objection taken by the petitioner on seniority list is

required to be decided by the respondent No.2 within a reasonable

period of time but, in the present case it appears that objection

raised on 18.11.2020 has still not been decided by respondent No.2.

4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and

respondent No.2 is directed to decide the objection taken by the

petitioner on the seniority list dated 18.11.2020, in accordance with

law, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

                             JUDGE                                  JUDGE
Prity