Dismissed

Vasant Yashwant Borase v. Chandrajit Gokulrao Bhamre and Others

Bombay HC3 Oct 2018CA/7522/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought intervention in an ongoing writ petition as a party respondent, claiming to be a whistle blower regarding illegal teacher appointments. The court held that a whistle blower regarding rejection cannot participate in the proceeding concerning such rejection and rejected the application as meritless.

What did the court decide?

Application for intervention in the petition was rejected.

Vasant Yashwant Borase Vs Chandrajit Gokulrao Bhamre… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

7522.18ca

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7522 OF 2018
IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13005 OF 2017

¶6

Vasant s/o Yashwant Borase,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Legal
Practitioner R/o Krushna Nagar,
Near Boys Remand Home, Mogalai,
Lane No.1, Sakri Road,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

¶7

..APPLICANT

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Chandrajit s/o Gokulrao Bhamre,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Malpur, Tq. Sakri,
Dist. Dhule & ors

¶10

..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr G.R. Syed, Advocate for applicants;

¶12

Mr V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to
6;
Mr S.M. Ganachari, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 11 to
14

¶13

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 MANISH PITALE,JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 3rd OCTOBER, 2018

¶15

ORAL ORDER :

¶16

The applicant seeks prayer to intervene in

¶17

the petition and further prays for allowing the

¶18

him to intervene in the petition No.13005 of 2017

¶19

7522.18ca

¶20

(2)

¶21

as party respondent.

¶22

2.It is stated in the application that the
applicant is whistle blower and there are certain
illegalities committed by respondent No.11 who is
in habit of recruiting various posts without
following due process of law. It is stated in the
application that without following mandate of
provisions of law, the petitioners were appointed,
who were not possessing requisite qualification of
the Teachers Eligibility Test, which is a condition
precedent as per resolution dated 13th February,
2013. Now, the appointment of the petitioners are
made in 2012. The applicant who is claiming himself

¶23

as whistle blower cannot be permitted to
participate in a proceeding wherein the issue is
raised of rejection order passed by the Education
Officer. The applicant wants to espouse the scope
of the petition claiming himself as a whistle
blower.

¶24

We are unable to accept the submission of

¶25

3.

¶26

7522.18ca (3)

¶27

the applicant and as no substantial ground is
coming forth to permit the applicant to participate
in the petition as party respondent, the prayer for
intervention in the petition is meritless.
Resultantly, the application is rejected.

¶28

(MANISH PITALE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

Tupe

¶30

Digitally signed by S.U. Tupe S.U. Date: 2018.10.06 11:00:13 +0530 Tupe

Vasant Yashwant Borase v. Chandrajit Gokulrao Bhamre and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant Yashwant Borase v. Chandrajit Gokulrao Bhamre 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

Mohd Jahedul Islam M a Majid Vs Gmidc, Aurangabad and Others

Shamkant Rajaram Bhadlikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anna Ramprasad Kulwant and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Govindrao Ghodke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uddhav Lodharam Bhatija Vs Laxmi Naresh Chandnani and Ors.

Nana Ratan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others