Tag: Mat Temporary Appointment

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.673 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Ms Neeta Karnik for the Petitioner. Shri T.D. Deshmukh for Respondent No.1. Smt. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATE : 22ND JANUARY 2013 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent. Heard the learned AGP for the State. Leave to amend for adding a party respondent and for incorporating additional averments in the Petition. In view of the communication dated 9th January 2013, the Petitioner can continue to act as a Principal at least till 31st January 2013. Therefore, we direct that this Petition shall be fixed for admission on 30th January 2013. ( A.P. BHANGALE, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.673 of 2013 Neeta Sane … Petitioner V/s. Dnyanasadhana College, Through Chairman and Ors. … Respondents Ms. Neeta Karnik , Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.3. Ms. Chandrakanta Gongane i/b. R.A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 30TH JANUARY, 2013 P.C. When the papers of this petition were produced before this Court on 22nd January, 2013 for seeking urgent relief, the papers were not circulated in advance. Therefore, it was not noticed that one of us (A.S. OKA, J.) will not be in a position to take up this petition. Hence, place it before a bench to which one of us (A.S. OKA, J.) is not a party. ( A.P. BHANGALE, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 673 OF 2013 Neeta Sane .. Petitioner Vs. Dnyanasadhana College & Ors. .. Respondents Ms Neeta Karnik for Petitioner. Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Chandrakanta Gongane i/b. Mr. R. A. Rodriques for Respondent No. 2. Mr. P. P. Kakade – AGP for Respondent No. 3 . CORAM : NARESH. H. PATIL & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2013 P.C. 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner has questioned the communication made by the respondent College Dnyanasadhana, Thane dated 9.1.2013. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the University Regulations after putting in one year service in absence of any adverse communication the petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed as Principal. 3] This fact is disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondent college. The learned counsel for the respondent college submits that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. 4] In the facts of the case the petitioner has statutory remedy of approaching the College Tribunal under the provisions of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the communication dated 9.1.2013 the petitioner continued to act as a Principal till 31.1.2013 and prayed that the petitioner be allowed to continue to act as a Principal for a period of two weeks from today. 6] The petitioner be allowed to continue as a Principal till 14.2.2013. This court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. 7] Writ Petition is disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Chandka 2/2