Petitioner challenged the date of birth of a former colleague. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as such issues fall within the management's expertise. Writ jurisdiction was not exercised.
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.
spb/
17wp11698-13.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11698 OF 2013
Arun Tukaram Patil … Petitioner.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others. … Respondents.
Mr. P.M. Arjunwadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Prashant Bhavke for Respondent No.4. Mr. C.G.Patil for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATE : 25 NOVEMBER, 2014
P.C. :
1 The Petitioner challenges the date of birth of Respondent No.6. The Petitioner was working as head-clerk in the same institution in which Respondent No. 6 discharged his duties as a clerk. The learned counsel appearing for the Principal of the College submits that Petitioner's services were terminated in the year 2007.
2 Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has referred to the orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee and
1/2
Borey
spb/
17wp11698-13.sxw
the other authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that Respondent No.6 has interpolated with record and submitted a false and bogus document to secure service and continued to remain in the services of Respondent No.3.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6 submitted that the issues raised by the Petitioner are based on the disputed questions of facts.
4 We have perused the record including communications at Exh. 'H' and 'O'. Petitioner was terminated from service in the year 2007. From the facts of the case, we find that the Petitioner has no locus to file the present petition, challenging the date of birth of Respondent No.6. It is for the management to look into such issues.
5 We are not inclined to interfere in exercise of our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. We do not express any opinion on the issue of date of birth of Respondent No.6. The Petition is dismissed.
(A.P.BHANGALE, J.)
(NARESH H. PATIL,J.)
2/2
Borey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus to file a writ petition challenging the date of birth of a staff member of the respondent college.
Whether this Court is inclined to interfere with the management's decision regarding employment matters through extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Arun Tukaram Patil
The State of Maharashtra
NARESH H. PATIL
A. P. BHANGALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
