Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, Thr. ... vs Punam Bhurasingh Chauhan(Smt. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8173 Bom

2208cao310.20                                                                 1/2

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 310 OF 2020
               IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.1691 OF 2020
                     IN WRIT PETITION NO.5804 OF 2019
(Zilla Parishad, Nagpur vs. Punam Bhurasingh Chauhan (Smt. Punam Manohar
Rathod) and others)

________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
                    Shri Majid Shaikh, Advocate for applicant.
                    Shri A.M. Sudame, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
                    Shri A.M. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader        for
                    respondent no.3.
                    Shri R.S. Khobragade, Advocate for respondent no.4.
                                        --------

                     CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 22, 2022

The Zilla Parishad, Nagpur seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 20/9/2019 by which directions were issued to the said Zilla Parishad to take steps in accordance with the Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001 for accepting the inter-District transfer of the original petitioner no.1 from Zilla Parishad, Bhandara to Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.

2) According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the said Act is not applicable in view of the provisions of 2208cao310.20 2/2

Section 3(1)(b) thereof as the original petitioner no.1 seeks transfer to Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.

3) Shri Sudame, learned Counsel for the original petitioners, however, submits that since appointment on the post of Pharmacist is a direct appointment, the aforesaid provision would not be applicable. He, however, seeks time to demonstrate that there could be appointments by way of transfer.

4) Accordingly time of two weeks is granted to the learned Counsel for the original petitioners to substantiate his contention.

                                    5)          Stand over to two weeks.




                                                JUDGE                               JUDGE




                                    khj

Digitally Signed By:KAMAL HUNDRAJ JESWANI Signing Date:23.08.2022 12:27