Dismissed

Uday Narayan Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Apr 2018WP/3350/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged approvals for staff appointments, promotions, and transfers made by a school without his signature as President. Court noted lack of details, internal management disputes, and absence of proof of petitioner's role. Consequently, court declined to issue a general direction, holding the writ petition devoid of substance.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with a note that generally a direction to cancel approvals cannot be issued due to internal management disputes and lack of details.

Uday Narayan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp3350-18.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3350 OF 2018

¶4

Uday s/o Narayan Patil

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Ms.Surekha P. Mahajan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND

¶11

K.K.SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 03rd April, 2018.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to cancel the approval granted to the proposals submitted by Respondents No.4 and 5 in respect of appointments, promotions and transfers of the staff after 27.02.2016, which do not bear signatures of the petitioners as President of the Institution.

¶14

2 There appears to be a dispute between the office bearers of management of the Institution. The details in respect of appointments, promotions and transfers of the staff have not been recorded in the petition.

¶15

3 Apart from this, Schedule "D" of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, prescribe a proforma for appointment of the staff. The letter of appointment is required to be signed by the Head Master and

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp3350-18.odt

¶18

Secretary of the School Committee. The proposal for grant of approval also shall have to be forwarded by the concerned School. The constitution of the School Committee is defined in Schedule “A”. Schedule “A” prescribe Constitution of the School Committee and according to clause 2(a), the President of the Governing Body or his nominee and three other members nominated by the Governing body shall constitute the School Committee. It is not clear as to whether petitioner is the President of the governing body. Even if assuming that the petitioner is one of the members, since details in respect of appointments, promotions and transfers of the staff, during the aforesaid period, have not been furnished, a general direction, as sought for, in these circumstances, when apparently there are conflicts between the Management itself, need not be issued.

¶19

4 In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instant case is not fit for causing interference. Petition is devoid of substance.

¶20

5 Hence, petition stands dismissed.

K.K.SONAWANE

JUDGE

R.M.BORDE JUDGE

adb

Uday Narayan Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Narayan Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Uttamrao Gomsale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Agatrao Murlidhar Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ramling Janardhan Nagtilak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Uttamrao Kaldate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhimrao Gurunath Mule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yashwant Aba Raskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others