The Maharashtra Regional Board Of ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13300 Bom

 Judgment                                1                             wp3508.21.odt




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


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 3508 OF 2021

 1. Maharashtra Regional Board of
    Education of the Church of North
    India, bearing PTR No.F-5798(Bom)
    having its Registered Office at
    C/o. St. Ursula Girls High School,
    Civil Lines, Nagpur, through its
    Authorised Signatory.

 2. St. Ursula Girls High School &
    Junior College, Civil Lines, Nagpur
    through its Headmistress.

 3. Mrs. Shweta C. Jachak,
    Aged about 23, Occ.: Service,
    R/o. New Akash Nagar, Nagpur.

 4. Mrs. Shilpa A. Das,
    Aged about 24 Occ.: Service,
    R/o. Zingabai Takli, Nagpur.
                                                            .... PETITIONERS.

                                   // VERSUS //

 1. The State of Maharashtra,
    Through the Secretary,
    Department of Education,
    Mantralaya, Bombay - 32.

 2. The Education Officer(Secondary),
    Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
                                                           .... RESPONDENTS.

  ______________________________________________________________
 Shri Bernard John, Advocate for Petitioners.
 Ms N.P.Mehta, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
 ______________________________________________________________


::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2021 07:30:39 :::
  Judgment                                  2                               wp3508.21.odt




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

DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

A.G.P., who appears by waiving notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner restricts his prayer to direct respondent

No.2 to decide the proposal dated 23/07/2019 regarding approval to

the appointments of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 as Shikshan Sevak.

4. In view of the above, we pass the following order:

        i)         The writ petition is allowed.



        ii)        Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the proposal dated

23/07/2019, sent by petitioner No.2 to him for grant of

approval to the appointment of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4

Judgment 3 wp3508.21.odt

as Shikshan Sevaks, in accordance with law, within four

weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

( ANIL S. KILOR, J ) ( SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

RRaut..