Dismissed

Jay Bharat Shikshan Sanstha, Gangapur Thr Secretarya and Anr. v. Sanjay Vishwanath Nanandkar and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2013WP/209/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the School Tribunal which allowed an amendment to an appeal memo. The court held that the amendment was permitted to consider substantial causes of justice and no interference was warranted, noting that backwages implications remain for the Tribunal's consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jay Bharat Shikshan Sanstha, Gangapur Thr Secretarya… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 209.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 209 OF 2013

¶4

Jay Bharat Shikshan Sanstha, Gangapur through Secretary and another .. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sanjay Vishawanath Nanandkar and others

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Shri R. J. Godbole, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos 3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2013.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

. The amendment in the appeal memo is allowed. Aggrieved thereby present petition.

¶12

Shri Godbole, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the said application for amendment is filed after six years. The petitioners had specifically raised an objection in the written statement that the appeal is not maintainable, as there is no

¶13

2 wp 209.13

¶14

prayer for setting aside the termination and none of the prayers made could have been entertained by the School Tribunal. The Tribunal while allowing the amendment application has not at all considered the submissions of the present petitioners and the say filed by them. According to the learned counsel said amendment could not have been allowed.

¶15

Shri Godbole, the learned counsel in the alternate submits that the delay that has been caused in making the amendment is at the behest of the present respondent No. 1. In case some favourable orders are passed in favour of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 would claim backwages. The present petitioners are not at fault for the delay caused and as such the respondent No. 1 in such a case should not be awarded backwages for such delayed period.

¶16

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order, so also the appeal memo. In appeal memo the present respondent No. 1 had made averments about the oral order of termination, that appears in para 12 and 13 of the appeal memo, but in the prayer clause a specific prayer was not made for setting aside the oral termination, though the prayers were made that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to join the appellant

¶17

3 wp 209.13

¶18

with continuity in service also claimed arrears of salary. In fact the prayers were moulded in different manner.

¶19

By allowing the amendment, the Tribunal has considered the substantial cause of justice. Even otherwise, the petitioners would have all the liberty to file their written say about the amendment allowed and can contest the same. No interference is called for in the said order passed by the School Tribunal allowing the amendment.

¶20

As far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners about backwages, earlier application for condonation of delay in filing appeal was filed by the present respondent No. 1 which was contested upto the Apex Court. Be that as it may, it is for the School Tribunal to consider the same. The petitioners may agitate about their stand on backwages, which the Tribunal would consider on its own merits.

¶21

The writ petition as such is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶22

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶23

bsb/Jan. 13

Jay Bharat Shikshan Sanstha, Gangapur Thr Secretarya and Anr. v. Sanjay Vishwanath Nanandkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Bharat Shikshan Sanstha, Gangapur Thr Secretarya and Anr. v. Sanjay Vishwanath Nanandkar and Ors.

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

Shaikh Musa Shaikh Umar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Deepak Laxman Patil Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Nisha Sadashiv Rohom Vs Raosaheb Baburao Katore and Ors.

Shri.Sudhakar Sakharam Shejul Vs the State of Maharashatra and Others.

Sushilabai Santoba Jadhav Vs Munjaji Keshav Shinde

Magardhawaj Venketrao Birajdar Vs Shripati@Shrimant Ramrao Birajdar and Ors.