MURLIDHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP, who appears by waiving notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no need to issue notice to respondent No.3, as no relief has been sought against respondent No.3.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) It is seen from the petition that the proposal dtd. 12/10/2018, seeking approval of respondent No.1 for absorption of three employees of the erstwhile village panchyat Rokadiya Nagar, has been sought and it is also seen that even the queries raised by respondent No.1 have been answered by respondent No.2 by its letter dtd. 26/2/2021 and yet, no decision has been taken by respondent no.1 on the proposal dtd. 12/10/2018. Since, the matter is pending for quite long time, it would be appropriate for respondent no.1 to take decision at the earliest.