Vandana Vinod Bhavsar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2252 Bom

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 14479 OF 2019

1.     Vandana Vinod Bhavsar,
       Age 47 years, Occu. Nil.,
       R/o. Padamnabh Nagar, Sakri Road,
       Dhule, Tq. And Dist. Dhule.                        ...Petitioner.

               Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through its Secretary,
       Rural Development and Water Conservation
       Department, Bandhkam Bhavan, Ground Floor,
       Merzbaan Road, Fort, Mumbai.

2.     The Project Director,
       District Rural Development Agency,
       Dhule, District Dhule,

3.     The Chief Executive Officer,
       Zilla Parishad, Dhule,
       Tq. And District Dhule.                            ....Respondents.

                                      ...
Mr. S.S. Wagh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, AGP for respondent No. 1.
Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
                                      ...
                                CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &
                                        S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATED : 07/03/2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. The learned AGP waives service for respondent No.

1. Learned counsel Mr. N.N. Desale waives service for respondent Nos.

WP No.14479/19

2 and 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard

finally.

2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus, directing the

respondents to absorb the petitioner on Class III or Class IV post as per

her qualification and also seeks order to consider the representations

dated 8th July 2019, 11th July 2019 and 19th August 2019. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has pressed relief claimed in prayer clause

'D'.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 on instruction

states that the representations mentioned in prayer clause 'D' would be

considered within six weeks from today after granting personal

hearing to the petitioner. The statement is accepted.

4. The petitioner is directed to remain present before the

respondent No. 3 on 15th March 2022 at 11.00 a.m. The respondent

No. 3 shall grant personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter shall

decide the representations within six weeks from the date of

appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner shall not seek any

unnecessary adjournments. The order passed by the respondent No. 3

shall be communicated within one week from the date of passing of

the order. If the order is in favour of the petitioner, consequential

WP No.14479/19

reliefs shall be granted to the petitioner within four weeks from such

order. If the order is against the petitioner, the petitioner would be at

liberty to file appropriate proceedings.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view

on merit of the representations made by the petitioner. The

representations shall be decided on its own merits. All contentions of

both the parties are kept open. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

6. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.

     [ S. G. MEHARE, J. ]                            [ R. D. DHANUKA, J. ]



ssc/