Back
MANGESH S. PATIL, SHAILESH P. BRAHME
Gitanjali, d/o. Prakash Patil – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of teacher appointment approvals (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. analysis of petitions based on appointments and revocations. (Para 5) |
| 3. arguments on legality of revocation (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's analysis on jurisdiction and procedure (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. establishing grounds for interference in approval (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. court's final order and repercussions (Para 28 , 37) |
| 7. final ruling reinforcing the dismissal of petitions. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Shailesh P. Brahme, J.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard litigating sides finally.
2. These petitions can be disposed of by common judgment and order, as relevant facts and points for determination are common. Petitioners are the employees of respondent Nos.4 and 5 Management. They are challenging common orders dated 06.02.2018 and 29.06.2017 passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Director of Education, revoking approval to their appointments.
3. The sequence of events in all the matters can be summarized as follows :-
| Sr. Nos. | Events/Documents | WP/2549/2018 Geetanjali Patil | WP/ 2550/2018 Pankaj Pawar | WP/ 25 | |
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
