BALBHIM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the communication/order dated 15.5.2009 passed by Respondent No.2-Principal District Judge, Beed, thereby discontinuing the services of the petitioner as a peon.

(3.) The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner had applied for the post of peon, in District Court, Beed, in pursuance of the advertisement published in newspaper. According to the petitioner, name of his father in the village record was recorded as "Suryakant", whereas his school record disclosed his father's name as "Sureshrao". Accordingly, in the application made for the post of peon, the petitioner mentioned his father's name as "Sureshrao" as per the school record.