Savita Wd/O Arun Wanre vs Education Officer (Secondary) ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8079 Bom

                                                          16.wp2023.2021 J.odt
                                           1/3



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

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2023 OF 2021

  Savita wd/o Arun Wanre
  Aged about 37 years, Occ.: Service,
  R/o. Param Asara Colony,
  Near Babu Jagjivanram School,
  Akot, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.                              .... PETITIONER

                                 // VERSUS //

  1. Education Officer (Secondary)
  Zilla Parishad, Akola.

  2. Akot Shikshan Sanstha, Akot
  Though its President, Shri Mohan
  s/o Anantrao Asarkar,
  Occ.: Advocate, Aged about 64 years,
  R/o Keshavraj Vetal, Akot,
  Tq. Akot, Distt. Akola.

  3. Shri Saraswasti Vidyalay, Akot,
  Through its Headmaster,
  Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.                              .... RESPONDENTS

  Mr. R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate for petitioner.
  Mr. Amit Madiwale, APP for respondent No.1/State.
  ________________________________________________________________

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

DATE : 18th JUNE, 2021.

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

Hearing was conducted through Video conferencing

and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality

was proper.

16.wp2023.2021 J.odt

2. Leave to amend the prayer clause by alternate prayer,

seeking direction to the respondent No.1 for deciding the proposal

of the respondent No.3-School, for grant of approval to the

appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis, is granted.

Amendment be carried out forthwith.

3. Heard Shri R.G. Kavimandan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Amit Madiwale, learned AGP for the respondent

No.1, who appears waiving notice. There is no need to issue notice

to the respondent Nos.2 & 3, as this petition can be disposed of by

appropriately considering the alternate prayer which is made

against the respondent No.1.

4. Heard accordingly, Rule. Rule is made returnable

forthwith. The matter is heard finally with the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is seen that the proposal dated 19.01.2019 sent by

the respondent Nos.2 & 3, seeking approval of the appointment of

the petitioner as a Peon on compassionate basis is still pending with

respondent No.1. We, therefore, by partly allowing the petition

direct the respondent No.1 to decide the proposal dated

16.wp2023.2021 J.odt

19.01.2019, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks

from the date of the order, provided that the proposal is not already

decided.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

                             JUDGE                                  JUDGE
Prity