Dismissed

Anand Dnyan Shikshan Sanstha through President Shri Satyawan Namdeo Ajabale v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Ministry of Sport and Education and Others

Bombay HC8 Apr 2014WP/2049/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to Education Officer to cancel teacher's appointment approval due to alleged fraud regarding training. Court held relief cannot be granted via writ; matter required internal management action. Petition disposed with no order on costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs.

Anand Dnyan Shikshan Sanstha through President Shri… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP2049-13

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2049/2013

¶5

(ANAND DNYAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, BHANDARA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Shri A.B. Moon, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, counsel for the R-1 to 4. Shri M.B. Turankar, counsel for the R-5.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE : APRIL 8, 2014.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner-Management seeks a direction to the respondent no.2-Education Officer to take appropriate steps to cancel the approval granted to the appointment of the respondent no.5 on the post of Assistant Teacher.

¶13

According to the petitioner, the respondent no.5 was an untrained teacher at the time of his appointment and the respondent no.5 produced a false and forged experience certificate for the purpose of securing the permission to pursue training qualification while in service. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the fraud played by the respondent no.5 on the petitioner-Society, the respondent no.2-Education Officer may be directed to cancel the approval of the respondent no.5.

¶14

¶15

WP2049-13

¶16

Shri Ghodeswar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2-Education Officer, submitted that it would be for the petitioner-Society to remove the respondent no.5 if the respondent no.5 has played a fraud on the society. It is submitted that the respondent no.2-Education Officer would not cancel the approval granted to the appointment of the respondent no.5 on the statement made by the petitionerManagement and the petitioner-Management is free to take appropriate action in the matter.

¶17

The learned counsel for the respondent no.5 states that the petitioner-Management has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. It is submitted that in Writ Petition No.268/2000, the management and the respondent no.5 had entered into a compromise and the management had agreed to continue the respondent no.5 in service with continuity of service. It is submitted that the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the joint pursis and without disclosing this material fact, the petition has been filed for cancellation of the approval of the respondent no.5 for the reasons best known to the petitionerSociety.

¶18

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner-Management cannot be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is for the management to take appropriate action against the respondent no.5 if the respondent no.5 has really played fraud on the management. In this case, we, however, find that the disputes between the parties was decided in an appeal filed by the respondent no.5 before the School

¶19

WP2049-13

¶20

¶21

Tribunal and the writ petition filed by the management against the judgment of the School Tribunal was disposed of on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties.

¶22

Be that as it may, since the relief sought by the petitioner-Management in the instant petition cannot be granted, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

APTE

Anand Dnyan Shikshan Sanstha through President Shri Satyawan Namdeo Ajabale v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Ministry of Sport and Education and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Dnyan Shikshan Sanstha through President Shri Satyawan Namdeo Ajabale v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Ministry of Sport and Education 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

Smt. Harsha Wd/O Dilip Nachwani Vs Shri. Gopichand S/O Ghanshamdas Nachwani and 3 Others

Union of India through General Manager, Mumbai and Other Vs Smt. Padmabai Wd/O Dhaneshwar Nihal

Madhukar Pandhariji Kullarkar Vs Pramila W/O Madhukar Kullarkar

Subhash S/O Moreshwar Patil Vs Sau Vandana W/O Subhash Patil (Hage) and Another

Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. Thr. Its Managing Director Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation Thr. Sub-Regional Officer and 5 Othrs

Sharad Balvantrao Shende Vs Ravindranath Tagore Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through President Rambhau Ramkrushna Satao and 2 Other