Rangnath Naryan Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1978 Bom

                                       1                                wp 1642.2021

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

              1090 WRIT PETITION NO.1642 OF 2021

                RANGNATH NARYAN JADHAV
                         VERSUS
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                          ...
       Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. V. H. Dighe
   AGP for Respondents No. 1&2: Mr. K. N. Lokhande
            Advocate for Respondent No. 3:
                 Mr. K. D. Bade Patil
                          ...

                               CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                      SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

                               DATE:       29th JANUARY, 2021

 PER COURT:

 1.       The          proposal            seeking    approval             to       the

appointment of the petitioner as Junior Clerk is rejected under the impugned order.

2. Mr. Dighe, the learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was working as a Peon and he was thereafter promoted to the post of Junior Clerk. The proposal for approval is rejected only on the ground that the post on Junior Clerk is to be filled in by nomination and cannot be by promotion. The learned Counsel submits that the post of Junior Clerk can be filled in by promotion. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ashok S/o. Shankarrao Shinde Vs. Probodhan

2 wp 1642.2021

Shikshan Sanstha and others reported in 1999 (1) Mh.L.J. 348. The said judgment is relied further by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2321 of 2019 under judgment dated 04.12.2020.

3. The learned A.G.P. accepts notice for respondents no. 1 and 2.

4. It appears that the post of Junior Clerk can be filled in by promotion is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of this Court in case of Ashok S/o. Shankarrao Shinde Vs. Probodhan Shikshan Sanstha and others and in Writ Petition No. 2321 of 2019 (supra).

5. In light of that, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer shall decide the proposal afresh, preferably within four (04) months. It shall not be rejected on the ground on which the impugned order is passed.

6. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

marathe