Prashant Onkar Khairnar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10625 Bom

                                                       WP No.4983/2021
                                       1


                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    204 WRIT PETITION NO.4983 OF 2021

                  PRASHANT ONKAR KHAIRNAR
                               VERSUS
       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND
                               OTHERS
                                  ...
           Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kamble Shirish M.
               AGP for Respondent 1 : Mr. S.P. Tiwari
          Advocate for Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr. Y.B. Bolkar
             Advocate for Respondent 4 : Mr. A.V. Hon
                                  ...

                               CORAM   :   S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                           R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATED : 09/08/2021.

PER COURT :

. Mr. Kamble, learned advocate for the petitioner

submits that the proposal forwarded by the respondent No. 4 on

2nd March, 2009 and 15th July, 2009 to the respondent Nos. 2

and 3 ought to be decided by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to decide it.

2. We have heard Mr. Bolkar, learned advocate for the

respondents. The learned advocate submits that the petitioner

has earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5495/2009, seeking direction

against the respondents with a prayer that the qualification

possessed by him was sufficient for his appointment as a

WP No.4983/2021

lecturer and University ought to have given approval. The

Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ petition on

the ground that the petitioner has already lost his job in the

year 2009 and replaced by another candidate who was holding

requisite qualification. The petition was dismissed.

3. Again the same relief is sought in the present writ

petition.

4. The petitioner has at no point of time challenged his

discontinuation of service either before the College Tribunal or in

the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner.

5. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court in Writ Petition No. 5495/2009 there would be no

propriety in entertaining the present writ petition.

6. The writ petition, as such, is disposed of. No costs.

[ R.N. LADDHA, J. ] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

ssc/