The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals. The court held that the Single Judge was justified in finding adequate reasons for refusing promotion. No case for interference was made out.
Both Letters Patent Appeals were rejected.
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.
12012015lpano.160.2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.
None for the appellant. Mr. D.P.Thakare, AGP for State. Mr. S.S.Ghate, Adv. for R-5 in LPA No. 160/2012.
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI & MRS. MRIDULA R. BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 12.1.2015
None appears for the appellant.
Heard Mr. S.S.Ghate, Adv. for Respondent no.5
Bank.
We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16th February, 2010. Perusal of the order would reveal that the complainant had approached the Court claiming denial of promotion after his superannuation. The learned Single Judge has perused the record and found that
12012015lpano.160.2012 2
on four occasions the appellant was offered promotion. However, he denied the same on the ground that his mother is ailing.
We do not find that any case is made out for the interference. Hence, the appeals are rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
patle
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing the promotion denial complaint.
Whether the appellant's personal reasons for denying promotion justify judicial interference.
Anil s/o Chintaman Khare
Govt. of Maharashtra
Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
B.R. Gavai
Mridula R. Bhaktar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
