Dismissed

Mr. Sarjerao Ramchandra Jadhav and Ors. v. Mrs. Shobha Mukund Kamlakar and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2020WP/2374/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an appointment of an assistant teacher. The court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the appointment of a respondent, specifically questioning how the appointment interfered with pending approvals for other petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi of the petitioners.

Mr. Sarjerao Ramchandra Jadhav and Ors. Vs Mrs. Shobha… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

27 wp 2374.2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2374 of 2020

¶4

Mr. Sarjerao Ramchandra Jadhav, President Teachers’ Heritage Organizing and Coordinating Association, Solapur and ors. …..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Mrs. Shobha Mukund Kamlakar, Head-Mistress, S. M. Joshi Hindi Medium School, Pune and ors. …..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6.

¶8

CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 9^th MARCH, 2020.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

According to the petitioners, respondent No.1- Mrs.Shobha Mukund Kamlakar, got an appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the school on 2^nd November, 1998, as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category, and merely because she is married to SC candidate, she would not be entitled to appointment to reserved vacancy. According to the petitioners, respondent No.1 does not belong to SC category.

¶12

We fail to understand the locus of the petitioners to challenge the appointment of respondent No.1. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the President of Teachers’ Heritage Organizing and Coordinating Association. Petitioner

¶13

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

¶14

Digitally signed by Shubhada Shubhada S. Kadam S. Kadam Date: 2020.03.11 10:30:42 +0530

¶15

27 wp 2374.2020.doc

¶16

Nos.2 and 3 are the teachers working in the same school where respondent No.1 is working. We put a specific question to learned counsel for the petitioner to point out to us as to how the appointment of respondent No.1 came in the way of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the approval to the appointment of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is pending. We do not find locus of the petitioner to challenge the appointment of respondent No.1. In view of this, the question of looking into the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Valsamma Paul (Mrs) and Cochin University and ors. (1996) 3 SCC 545 does not at all arise. If the petitioners are aggrieved by non-grant of approval to their appointment, it is open for them to challenge such action in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of locus of the petitioners.

¶17

[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [R. K. DESHPANDE, J.]

¶18

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Mr. Sarjerao Ramchandra Jadhav and Ors. v. Mrs. Shobha Mukund Kamlakar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sarjerao Ramchandra Jadhav and Ors. v. Mrs. Shobha Mukund Kamlakar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shukla Rameshchandra S. Vs Somaiya Education Trust and 4 Ors.

Balbharti Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Francis Chettiar and Anr. Vs St. Xavier'S Technical Institute and 3 Ors.