Review petition dismissed holding no ground for review despite petitioner's claim of non-impleadment. Future termination will be challenged via Appeal under Section 9 of the relevant Act.
Review petition fails and is dismissed. Civil Application No. 542 of 2013 disposed of.
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.
RPWST5632_13.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.5632 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3842 OF 2012 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2013
Shri Hemant Mahadev Magarde Vs.
… Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents
Mr. Amol Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 5.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2013
P.C.:
Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 5.
1/2
RPWST5632_13.sxw
and the private respondents in Writ Petition No.3842 of 2012 have suppressed the material facts from this Court. He submitted that the review petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher on 11.02.2011 after following due process of law. However, review petitioner was not impleaded as party respondent in the Appeal and consequently, in Writ Petition No.3842 of 2012. However, after the Petition was dismissed on 27.11.2012, the respondent No.4 terminated his services by order dated 08.01.2013.
(R. G. KETKAR, J.)
Minal Parab
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petitioner was properly impleaded as a party in the underlying appeal and writ petition.
Whether suppression of material facts by the petitioner justifies allowing the review petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Hemant Mahadev Magarde
The State of Maharashtra
R. G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
