Dismissed

Union of India through Chairman,New Delhi and 2 Ors. v. Shri B.D. Besre, Mapusa-Goa.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2009WP/252/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Goa disposed of a writ petition challenging an order regarding regularization and promotion. The court found the impugned order did not discuss if the petitioner's appointment was regular and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication citing Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

What did the court decide?

Remanded the matter for adjudication afresh in accordance with law.

Union of India through Chairman,New Delhi and 2 Ors… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 252 OF 2003

¶4

Union of India through Chairman, Central Board of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi.

¶5

Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Panaji-Goa. 3. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise-I, Commissionerate, Mumbai having office at Central Excise Building M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. ... Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Shri B. D. Besre, Inspector of Central Excise, Asiatic Evergreen Apartment, Near Satteri Temple, 1^st Floor, F-11, Khorlim, Mapusa-Goa. .. Respondent

¶8

Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jimmy John, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & N. A. BRITTO, J.

¶11

DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2009.

¶12

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT(Per SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)

¶14

We have heard the learned Central Government Standing Counsel

¶15

and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

Challenge in this present Writ Petition is to the Order dated 2-3-2001

¶17

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. The relief sought was with regard to regularization and consequential promotion. In para 4 of the Judgment a principle of law has been noticed by the Tribunal. However, it is nowhere discussed in the Judgment whether the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Inspector, Central Excise was in accordance with the Rules and whether it was made in the manner which would disentitle him to the relief claimed. The question of limitation is also raised before this Court. However, it appears that the same was not raised before the Administrative Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submits that this is deemed to have been waived. We remand the matter for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 4).

¶18

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

Union of India through Chairman,New Delhi and 2 Ors. v. Shri B.D. Besre, Mapusa-Goa.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through Chairman,New Delhi and 2 Ors. v. Shri B.D. Besre, Mapusa-Goa.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madrasa Raza E Mustafa Thru.Mr.Sayeed H.R.Gundar Vs Govt. of Goa through the Chief Secretary and Anr.

Joao Mariano Fernandes Vs State of Goa and Anr.

Shri Kashiram K. Naik,Mormugao-Goa. Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao and an

Mr. Manuel Sequeira,Taleigao-Goa. Vs State of Goa and Anr.

Mr. Sebastiao Araujo Ticro,St.Cruz,Tiswadi-Goa. Vs State of Goa and Anr.

Mr. Joao Filomena Fernandes, Merces-Goa. Vs State of Goa and Anr.