AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Chandurkar, J
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioners is that despite appointing the petitioner no.3 as Peon by following the prescribed procedure alongwith a Clerk and a Laboratory Assistant, the proposal with regard to grant of approval to the appoint of the petitioner no.3 has not yet been considered. The approval however has been granted to the Clerk and the Laboratory Assistant who were appointed alongwith the petitioner no.3.
It is submitted that the proposal dated 22.06.2021 made on behalf of the petitioner no.2-College insofar as it relates to the petitioner no.3 has not been decided.
Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to take a decision on the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.3 on the post of Peon. This decision would be pursuant to the proposal dated 22.06.2021 made by the petitioner no.2-College. The decision be taken within a period of four weeks of production of this order before the respondent no.2. The decision taken be communicated to the petitioners accordingly.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.