SHRI. GUNDERAO SURYABHAN GODE v. MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND 3 OTHERS
WP/1861/2014 · 2026-08-29
body2014
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2014 DAILYLAW 2778 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2014 DAILYLAW 2778 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
(1) 6-WP-1861-2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1861/2014 SHRI. GUNDERAO SURYABHAN GODE VS MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND 3 OTHERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for the Petitioner (s). Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. N.N. Thengre, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
CORAM :
ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE :
AUGUST 29, 2026.
1. Heard.
2. The challenge is to the Departmental Inquiry initiated against the petitioner, saying that it is proceeding in violation of the provisions of Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
3. The matter was listed before this Court on 23.04.2014. The Court clarified that there is no stay to the Departmental Inquiry and the Management is free to pass an appropriate order in the matter.
4. Mr. N.N. Thengre, who appears for the Management, submits that he has no knowledge as to whether an order has been passed.
5. The pleadings indicate that the petitioner was to retire in the year 2014. Considering the time span lost in the petition and further the fact that nobody is appearing for the petitioner, there is every reason to believe that either the purpose of filing petition has been served or that it has rendered infructuous.
6. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:11336-DB
(2) 6-WP-1861-2014
7. Copy of order shall be served upon the petitioner for taking necessary steps, if so advised. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya