Partly allowed

Vishnu Vithalrao Banapure v. the Secretary, Latur Education Society and Others

Bombay HC16 Apr 2013WP/1212/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court set aside the School Tribunal's order dismissing an appeal. The Court held that no issue regarding the validity of the petitioner's appointment was framed, thereby handicapping the parties. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh after framing proper points.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order of the School Tribunal are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh after framing proper points for determination.

Vishnu Vithalrao Banapure Vs the Secretary, Latur… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 1212.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2013

¶5

Vishnu Vithalrao Banapure V/s The Secretary, Latur Education Soceity & Ors.

¶6

Office Notes,Office	Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of
Coram,appearances,	................................
Court's orders or	CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
directions and
Registrar's orders	DATE : 16/04/2013

¶7

Mr. S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. Mr. V.D.Gunale, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. Mr. Irpatgire, Advocate for the respondent.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The petitioner had filed Appeal U/s 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act assailing the order of termination. The School Tribunal, Latur [For short, 'Tribunal'] has framed following points for determination :

¶10

" POINTS FOR DETERMINATION FINDINGS

¶11

1. Whether the appellant proves that the oral otherwise

¶12

2 W.P. 1212.2013

¶13

termination dated 17/12/2011 terminating the services of appellant is illegal, null and void and requires to be quashed ? No

¶14

2. Whether appellant is entitled for the relief prayed in the Appeal ? No

¶15

3. What order ? As per final order. "

¶16

The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner is not legal and proper.

¶17

Mr. Jadhavar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no issue framed by the Tribunal regarding validity of the appointment of the petitioner. The only issue was framed with regard to the legality of the termination order. The Appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not been appointed by the competent person. There was no occasion to prove the said fact.

¶18

Mr. Irpatgire, the learned counsel submits that in fact he represents the Secretary.

¶19

Mr. Deshmukh and Mr. Gunale, the learned counsel submits

¶20

3 W.P. 1212.2013

¶21

that though no specific issue has been framed, the fact about validity of the appointment by incompetent person i.e. by removed Secretary has been discussed. The parties were aware about the dispute and have contested the matter. Non framing of specific issue would not render the said Judgment erroneous. The learned counsel also canvassed about incompetency of Mr. Gojamgunde to appoint the petitioner.

¶22

Mr. Irpatgire, the learned counsel submits that Mr. Gojamgunde had authority to appoint the petitioner and he is validly elected Secretary. The learned counsel supports the case of the petitioner.

¶23

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment.

¶24

The points for determination as reproduced supra are with regard to the legality and validity of the otherwise oral termination order dated 17/12/2011. No issue has been framed with regard to the validity of the appointment order. Perusing the points for determination, it does not appear that the parties were made known that the appointment of the petitioner whether it is legal or not would also be the subject matter of consideration. In view of absence of the said issue, naturally the parties would be handicapped to put-forth their case.

¶25

4 W.P. 1212.2013

¶26

In light of the above, the impugned Judgment and order can not be sustained and the same are set aside. The parties are relegated before the Tribunal, who shall decide the Appeal afresh after framing proper points for determination and hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the School Tribunal, Latur on 29/04/2013.

¶27

The parties are at liberty to file their Say and documents.

¶28

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶29

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶30

KNP/W.P. 1212.2013

Vishnu Vithalrao Banapure v. the Secretary, Latur Education Society and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Vithalrao Banapure v. the Secretary, Latur Education Society and Others

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

Subhash Madhavrao Bhogade Vs Supdt. Engineer, Mse Dist. Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Abhilasha Balbhimrao Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Hindpal Shrimant Bidwe and Anr. Vs Shivaji Vithal Pandare and Ors.

Lahu Rangnath Shinde and Anr. Vs Sunity Kakasaheb Mogal

Latur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Vilas Sheshrao Deshmukh

Shakuntala Laxman Sathe and Another Vs Vishwanath Baburao Karale and Others