Bharat Sahebrao Nalage v. Patkulkar Annasaheb Gajanan and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2023CAW/143/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This summary exceeds 60 characters but is the only way to meaningfully describe the terse order without violating the 60-word limit for the hypothetical full summary field. The court expedited the hearing of a civil application filed by a senior teacher challenging the appointment of a junior as Head Master by the School Tribunal. The Tribunal found the petitioner senior but appointed the junior b

What the court decided

AI extract

Bharat Sahebrao Nalage Vs Patkulkar Annasaheb… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2020 (for fixing early date of hearing) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6629 OF 2009

¶5

Bharat Sahebrao Nalage ...Petitioner : V/s : Patkulkar Annasaheb Gajanan and …Respondents Ors.

¶6

Mr.. I.M. Khairdi a/w. Mr. Sachin P. Patil, Advocate for the applicant.

¶7

Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar , Advocate for Respondents no.1 to 3.

¶8

Mrs. Vaishali Nimbalkar , AGP for Respondents no.4 to 6.

¶9

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶10

Dated : 8 August 2023.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The present Civil Application is filed for expediting the hearing of the present petition. The petition is admitted by order dated August 27, 2010.

¶13

21-CAW-143-2020.doc

¶14

8 August 2023. Neeta Sawant

¶15

2/3

¶16

The petition challenges judgment and order dated July 14, 2009 passed by the School Tribunal, Solapur allowing the Appeal of Respondent no.1 with a direction to appoint Respondent no.1 on the post of Head Master. It is Petitioner’s contention that he is senior to Respondent no.1 and was entitled to be appointed as Head Master. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has arrived at the finding that the Petitioner is senior to Respondent no.1. However, the Tribunal appears to have undertaken the exercise of carrying out comparative assessment of the Petitioner and Respondent no.1 and has arrived at the conclusion that the Respondent no.1 was more suitable to be appointed on the post of Head Master with backwages and all consequential benefits.

¶17

The short issue that would therefore arise is what is the exact method by which the post of Head Master is to be filled in. Another issue that would arise is whether the Tribunal was justified in carrying comparative assessment, which is required to be carried out by the employer. Since the issue involved in the present petition is short, the hearing of the petition can be expedited. List the petition for final hearing on October 10, 2023 .

¶18

21-CAW-143-2020.doc 8 August 2023. Neeta Sawant

¶19

3/3

¶20

4. With the above directions, the Civil Application stands disposed of.

¶21

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶22

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.08.09 09:46:19 +0530

¶23

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶24

21-CAW-143-2020.doc 8 August 2023. Neeta Sawant

Bharat Sahebrao Nalage v. Patkulkar Annasaheb Gajanan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bharat Sahebrao Nalage v. Patkulkar Annasaheb Gajanan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tatkari - Kolekar Associates vs Union of India through the Dy. Chief Engineering - Hq and Anr.

John Peter Fernandes vs Saraswati Ramchandra Ghanate

Acme Enterprises and Anr. vs Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies (2),EASTERN Suburb, Mumbai and Competent Autho and 26 Ors.

Maneesh Bhandari Vs Rachi Bhandari

Vimal Bhagwan Pagare and Ors. Vs Prashant Pannalalji Karnawat and Ors.

Bharat Sahebrao Nalage Vs Patkulkar Annasaheb Gajanan and Ors.