Dismissed

Shri N C Patil Chairman Shri Deopur Vidhayak Saitee Dhule and Ors. v. Punamchand Eknath Bhairav and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2013RA/83/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court reviewed an order in a petition concerning a teacher's experience certificate. The court held that the certificate was for B.Ed. admission and no mistake required correction. The review was dismissed due to lack of merit and a subsequent Supreme Court dismissal. Delay for a separate condonation application was condoned.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed.

Shri N C Patil Chairman Shri Deopur Vidhayak… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Review Appln.No.83/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.83/2013

¶5

IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2930/2010

¶7

WITH

¶8

CA NO.6714/2013 IN REVIEW APPLN.NO.83/2013

¶9

Shri N.C.Patil and others - APPLICANTS

¶10

 VERSUS

¶11

Punamchand Eknath Bhairav & Ors. - RESPONDENTS

¶12

*****

¶13

Mr.SB Talekar, Adv. h/for Mr.Sanjay Kolhare, Advocate
for Applicants;

¶14

Mr.PB Patil, Adv. For Respondent No.1;

¶15

Mr.KG Patil, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶16

*****

¶17

CORAM:K.U.CHANDIWAL J.

¶18

DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER,2013.

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

1)Heard. Civil Application No.6714/2013 is
moved for condonation of delay caused in filing the
review application. For the reasons stated in the
application, delay condoned, CA for condonation of
delay is disposed of.

¶21

2)Review of order dated 27th March, 2012
recorded in Writ Petition No.2930/2010 is sought.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties on
review application.

¶22

3)Mr.Talekar, learned Counsel for the original
respondents/managementsays,theexperience
certificate, purportedly collected by the teacher
viz. Punamchand Eknath Bhairav from the Headmaster by

¶23

2 Review Appln.No.83/2012

¶24

his letter dated 28.12.1999 was precisely for
procuring admission to B.Ed. Course at Yeshwantrao
Chavan Maharashtra Open University and it had no
bearing of any work or experience of the said teacher
at the institution from 1994. This according to
Mr.Talekar, is clarified by communication/statement
dated 10thMarch, 2010 of Mr. R.S.Patil, then
Headmaster.

¶25

4)Scope of review is limited. The issuance of
the certificate by Headmaster of the school and his
explanation dated 10th March, 2010, was also a point
of argument before this Court at the time of deciding
the writ petition and same has been considered. It
cannot be said that there was a mistake, requiring
with sufficient reasons to correct it.

¶26

5)Another facet of the matter is, feeling
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.3.2012
in writ petition no.2930/2010, the management has
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave
to Appeal (Civil) No.26585/2012 and the same was
dismissed on 17th September, 2012. No scope, no
ground is made out to review the order recorded in
the writ petition. Review petition lacks merit,
dismissed.

¶27

(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE

¶28

bdv/

Shri N C Patil Chairman Shri Deopur Vidhayak Saitee Dhule and Ors. v. Punamchand Eknath Bhairav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri N C Patil Chairman Shri Deopur Vidhayak Saitee Dhule and Ors. v. Punamchand Eknath Bhairav and Anr.

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

Ganesh Mokinda Patole and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Pappu Awasarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sachin Shankar Jadhav U/G Parvatibai Shankar Jadhav Vs M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Shivaji Raosaheb Hambarde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Suryabhan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prashant Keshavrao Hambarde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra