Dismissed

Kalayatri Education Institution v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2007WP/7930/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by an Ashram School management challenging an order quashing terminations on natural justice grounds. The Court allowed the managing authority to take further steps subject to an expert report while vacating the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interim order vacated; no stay of this order.

Kalayatri Education Institution Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 WRIT PETITION NO.7930 OF 2006
 ------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
 or directions and Registrar’s :
 orders. :

¶2

 ------------------------------------:------------------------------------
 Mr.D.R.More for petitioner.
 Mr.V.P.Malwankar, AGP for respondent
 Nos.1 to 3.
 Mr.M.A.Patil for respondent Nos.5 to
 7.
 -----
CORAM : H.L GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
V.M.KANADE, J.
 DATED: 21st February2007
 P.C. :
 1. Heard the learned Counsel

¶3

 for the parties.

¶4

 2. This Petition is filed by
 a Management of a Ashram School
 situated at Shrigaon, District
 Pune. The Regional Social Welfare
 Officer, Pune has passed an order
 dated 31st August 2008 interfering
 with the termination of services
 of respondent Nos.4 to 8. This is
 principally on the ground that
 when an enquiry was held against

¶5

 them for the allegations of
 tampering with record, fraud,
 etc., the persons concerned were
 not given any memo or notice.
 This is recorded by the Regional
 Social Welfare Officer in his
 order and, therefore, he directed
 that the Management should
 re-appoint the terminated
 respondents on duty immediately

¶6

 and further action will be taken,
 depending upon the report of the
 handwriting expert. This is

¶7

 because the allegations of fraud
 and tampering with record, etc.

¶8

 have been made against the

¶9

 concerned respondents.

¶10

 3. If in the report of the

¶11

 handwriting expert, when it is

¶12

 made, respondent Nos.4 to 8 are

¶13

 found responsible for the

¶14

 aforesaid act, it will be open for

¶15

 the concerned to take further

¶16

 action. No need to interfere as
 of now. Petition is dismissed.

¶17

 Interim order stands vacated.

¶18

 4. Mr.More appearing for the

¶19

 petitioner requests for stay of

¶20

 this order. Request is rejected.

¶21

(ACTING C.J.)

¶22

 (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Kalayatri Education Institution v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalayatri Education Institution v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tharkude Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd.and Anr.

Namdeo Narayan Alhat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dnyanraj Sitaram Sarvagaud Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amichand Amratlal Shah Vs Bank of India and Anr.

Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Parishad and Anr. Vs State Election Commission and Anr.

Loktantrik Janta Front Vs Union of India and Anr..