Bhagyashree W/O Shrikant ... vs The State Of Maha., Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13209 Bom

         Judgment                            1    52-W.P. No.7622.2022.odt



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

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 7622 OF 2022

      Sau. Bhagyashree w/o Shrikant Zadgaonkar,
      Aged about 58 years, Occu. - Service,
      R/o. Plot No. 04, Flat No. 301,
      Sai Prashad Apartment, Rajashree Nagar,
      Beltarodi Road, Nagpur 27.              .... PETITIONER

                             // VERSUS //

1)    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Secretary,
      Department of Education,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

2)    The Deputy Director,
      Minimum Competency Vocational
      Course, Regional Office,
      Nagpur.

3)   C. P. & Berar College,
     Through its Principal,
     Tulshibag Mahal, Nagpur.              .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
     Mr. S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the petitioner.
     Mr. K.S. Joshi, Additional Government Pleader for respondent
     Nos.1 and 2.
______________________________________________________________


                    CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                            M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

DATED : 19.12.2022

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

1. Heard Mr. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mrs. Joshi, learned Additional Government Pleader, who appears by

waiving notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Judgment 2 52-W.P. No.7622.2022.odt

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

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is only pressing an

alternate prayer which is about issuance of a direction to respondent

No.2 to decide the representation and this is the reason that we are not

issued any notice to respondent No.3.

4. Considering the nature of the alternate prayer made in the

Petition, we are of the view that this Petition can be partly allowed and

it is allowed accordingly.

5. We direct respondent No.2 to decide the representation of

the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditious as possible, in any

case within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

Kirtak

Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK BHIMRAO JANARDHAN Signing Date:19.12.2022 18:54