AKSHAYKUMAR VENKAT KADAM v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WP/10999/2025 · 2025-11-07
Shri Hiten S Venegavkar, Smt Vibha Kankanwadi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 73256 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 73256 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10999 OF 2025 Akshaykumar Venkat Kadam VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others Mr. A. V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for respondent-State
CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 07th November, 2025 PER COURT :-
1. Present petition has been filed to challenge the termination
order of the petitioner dated 01.07.2024, issued by respondent No. 4. The petitioner contends that he was appointed on the post of Computer Operator under ‘Aaple Sarkar Seva Kendra Scheme’. According to the petitioner, the order dated 01.07.2024 was never served on him but he was required to obtain it under the Right to Information act. He was never heard before passing the said order and as per Government Resolution dated 25.03.2022, there is provision for appeal and, therefore, by communication dated 11.06.2025 when he has tried to file the appeal, no action has been taken on the same.
2. We find that the communication dated 11.06.2025 is rather a representation and it specifically avers that^^lacaf/kr ‘kklu fu.kZ;kizek.ks ek- xV 920-WP-10999-2025.odt 1 of 2 2025:BHC-AUG:30702-DB
fodkl vf/kdkjh ;kaps fu.kZ;kfojks/kkr vihy nk[ky djr vlwu ek>k izFke vfiy vtZ Lohdk:u eyk ek>h cktw ekaM.;kph la/kh nsr eyk U;k; feGowu |kok gh fouarh**
3. Copy of the appeal memo has not been filed whether the petitioner had made application for condonation of delay or not is also not clarified and, therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. However, the learned Advocate for the petitioner then submits that the petitioner would approach the appropriate authority with an appeal and the application for condonation of delay.
4. We grant the said liberty to the petitioner and the appropriate authority would then be at liberty to decide the same on its own merits. With these directions, we dispose of the writ petition. (Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) B. S. Joshi 920-WP-10999-2025.odt 2 of 2