In a writ petition challenging a School Tribunal's decision reinstating a teacher, the Bombay High Court found no jurisdictional error, finding the Tribunal considered relevant material and permitted the respondent service continuation order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
wp471.11
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 471 OF 2011
_____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders |
Mr. Pratap G. Rodge, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.1.
2
wp471.11
educational session. He has therefore invited to communication of Education Officer, which has categorically informed the management in this respect and also about the grant of continuity to the service of the present respondent no.1 on 02.02.2008.
(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE.
21.01.2011 gas/wp 471.11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether School Tribunal committed jurisdictional error or acted perversely in allowing the respondent's appeal against termination appointment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
School Tribunal Respondent
Respondent no.1
B.P. Dharadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
