Dismissed

Vijay Ramesh Bhalerao v. Sadhana Janardhan Jadhav and Others

Bombay HC25 Mar 2015RA/74/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review application seeking review of a Division Bench order regarding absorption of a surplus teacher, the High Court rejected the plea. The court held that a review cannot be an appeal in disguise and stated the applicant had no independent right to the post.

What did the court decide?

Review application rejected and pending civil applications disposed of.

Vijay Ramesh Bhalerao Vs Sadhana Janardhan Jadhav and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

LPAST 12712.2013.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION ST NO. 12712 OF2013

¶5

VIJAY RAMESH BHALERAO VERSUS

¶6

SADHANA JANARDHAN JADHAV AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar Advocate for Respondent 1 : Miss. Surekha Mahajan Advocate for Respondent 4 : Mr. P.M.Nagargoje

¶8

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: March 25, 2015

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

We have perused the order passed by the Division Bench on 5.12.2012. While allowing the Letters Patent Appeal presented by the respondent herein, directions have been issued to include the name of the review applicant in the list of surplus teachers and take further steps in respect of his absorption in accordance with his seniority. In fact, the Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, presented by the respondents have shown indulgence to the applicant herein and issued directions for enlisting his name in the list of surplus teachers. The applicant herein who was holding the post which ought to have been occupied by the appellant in the LPA. However, it appears that the Division Bench has taken a lenient view and directed accommodation of the respondent No.4 in the Letters Patent Appeal i.e. applicant herein. We do not find that the applicant has any

¶11

2 LPAST 12712.2013.odt

¶12

independent right to claim the post. The grounds which are being urged in the Review application are in the nature of objections which are required to be dealt with by an Appellate Court. This Court dealing with the review application is not performing the functions of the appellate Court. The review application cannot be considered as an appeal in disguise. It is also not a matter of dispute that review applicant has approached the Supreme Court and Special Leave Petition presented by him has been rejected in lemine. Review application is devoid of substance hence stands rejected.

¶13

Pending Civil Applications stand disposed of.

¶14

( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶15

aaa/-

Vijay Ramesh Bhalerao v. Sadhana Janardhan Jadhav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Ramesh Bhalerao v. Sadhana Janardhan Jadhav 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

Dnyanoba Sitaram Mundhe Vs Prakash Vitthalrao Mundhe and Ors.

Dnyanoba Sitaram Mundhe and Anr. Vs Prakash Vithalrao Mundhe and Ors.

Shankar Lalji Ade Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division and Others

Pachora Taluka Co-Op. Education Society and Ors. Vs Sahebrao Gajmal Patil and Anr.

Pachora Taluka Co-Op. Education Society and Ors. Vs Sahebrao Gajmal Patil and Anr.

Madanlal Lalchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others