Disposed

Ajay Vasantappa Shete v. Sansthan Shri Guru Mahaling Math Bardapur Dist.Beed Thru Gpa Revansiddha Mahadevayya Hiremath and O

Bombay HC24 Nov 2014WP/1577/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TheHigh Court held that the impugned communication did not contain the necessary phraseology to constitute an order of suspension. As no valid suspension order was in force, the petitioners were deemed not to have been suspended, and the writ petitions were disposed of without addressing the Administrator's appointment or alleged dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners deemed not to have been suspended; writ petitions disposed of.

Ajay Vasantappa Shete Vs Sansthan Shri Guru Mahaling… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1577 OF 2012 WITH C.A.NO.9687 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1578 OF 2012 WITH C.A.NO.9688 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1586 OF 2012 WITH C.A.NO.9689 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1587 OF 2012 WITH C.A.NO.9690 OF 2012

¶6

Ajay Vasantrao Shete Vs. Sansthan Shri Guru Mahaling Math, Bardapur Tq. Ambejogai, Dist.Beed and others.

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.S.V.Warad, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.U.S.Mote, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State. Mr.R.B.Deshpande, advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 7. Mr.R.J.Godbole, advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & V.K.JADHAV, JJ. Date : 24.11.2014.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Mr.Warad, learned counsel submits that the order of

¶14

¶15

suspension dated 5.7.2011, issued by the Respondent No.1 is illegal, without authority. The Mathadhipati is not entitled to issue any orders of suspension, it is only the Management who can issue the order of suspension. Even no prior approval of the Education Officer is obtained before passing the order of suspension. The learned counsel submits that the order of suspension as is without the approval of the Education Officer and is not issued by the Management nor there is any Resolution passed by the Management to that effect, the said order of suspension is bad in law. According to the learned counsel, this Court vide order dated 1.8.2011, stayed the order of suspension and allowed the petitioners to work.

¶16

Mr.Godbole, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 Mathadhipati submits that Mathadhipati is the sole trustee and has absolute authority to pass the order of suspension. However, the learned counsel on going through the petitions, the affidavit-inreply and other documents filed fairly concedes that there is no effective order suspending the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 submits that they are also trustees and Respondent No.1 could not have acted independently, more particularly, through Power of Attorney Holder and they have not issued any orders.

¶17

It is not disputed that presently Administrator is appointed.

¶18

¶19

The Administrator is appointed on 27.9.2012 and the Administrator still continues. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that the petitioners are terminated from service. However, this could not be brought to the notice of the Court on 1.8.2012, when the matters were heard as the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 could not be intimated about the said fact.

¶20

In the present matters, we are not concerned with the legality or otherwise of the appointment of the Administrator or whether any such order of dismissal was issued to the petitioners or not. The Writ Petitions are limited to the extent that the order of suspension is only challenged. The order at Exh.B is perused which is impugned in the present petitions. The said order is not an order suspending the petitioners. The phraseology of the said order no where even denotes the same. Even the order at Exh.R-1 page 44 is not a request seeking permission to suspend the petitioners. It is altogether for a different purpose.

¶21

In absence of any order of suspension in force, it can not be said that the petitioners were at any time suspended.

¶22

In light of the above, the communication at Exh.B -page 17 addressed to the petitioners is not an order of suspension and can not be treated as an order of suspension. The same is non-est as far as aspect of suspension is concerned.

¶23

¶24

In light of the above, it will be deemed that the petitioners were not under suspension. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations. It is made clear that we have not considered the contentions of the learned counsel for respective parties with regard to the appointment of the Administrator or the alleged dismissal.

¶25

Needless to state that all Civil Applications also stand disposed of.

¶26

(V.K.JADHAV,J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶27

Dt.24.11.2014. asp/office/wp1577.12

¶28

Ajay Vasantappa Shete v. Sansthan Shri Guru Mahaling Math Bardapur Dist.Beed Thru Gpa Revansiddha Mahadevayya Hiremath and O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Vasantappa Shete v. Sansthan Shri Guru Mahaling Math Bardapur Dist.Beed Thru Gpa Revansiddha Mahadevayya Hiremath and O

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

Vrundawani Asaram Dhopate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dattatraya Sadashiv Pupulwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Dwarkalal Shenfadu Shimre Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Akhtar Khan Usman Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nagnath Tulshiram Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Awazkhan Majitkhan Dulot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others