Dattatray Shikshan Sanstha, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11271 Bom

                                                         15.wp3025.2021Jud.odt
                                           1/2



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

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3025 OF 2021

  Shri Dattatray Shikshan Sanshtha Divthana,
  Through its President
  Tah. Chikhli, District Buldhana                            .... PETITIONER

                                 // VERSUS //

  1. State of Maharashtra
  Through its Secretary,
  Department of School Education
  and Sports, Mantralaya,
  Mumbai - 32
  2. State of Maharashtra
  Through its Secretary,
  Department of Finance,
  Mantralaya,
  Mumbai - 32
  3. Deputy Director of Education,
  Amravati Division, Amravati.
  4. The Education Officer (Secondary)
  Zilla Parishad, Buldhana                           .... RESPONDENTS

  Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioner.
  Mr. A.A. Madiwale, APP for respondents/State.
  ________________________________________________________________

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

DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per:- S.B. Shukre, J.]

Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri A.A. Madiwale, learned AGP, who appears by

waiving notice for the respondents.

15.wp3025.2021Jud.odt

2. Leave to amend the prayer clause is granted. Amendment

be carried out forthwith.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard

finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. We have taken up this petition for final disposal at this

stage. In view of the fact that the main prayer in this petition is only

about the necessity to issue directions to the respondents authorities

to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with

law at the earliest .

5. We find that the representation which is pending for

decision is addressed to the respondent No. 1 and it is of the date

of 14.01.2021. This representation seeks permission of the

Government to fill-up the vacancies in the minority school. The

grievance raised in the representation requires urgent consideration

and decision. Therefore, we direct the respondent No.1 to take

decision on the representation dated 14.01.2021, in accordance

with law, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six

weeks from the date of the receipt of the order by it, if not decided.

The Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed.

Rule is made absolute in these terms. No costs.

                             JUDGE                                  JUDGE
Prity