Dismissed

Sambhaji Jagnnath Bhosale v. President , D. P. Bhosale, Shikshan Sanstha Nagazari, Tal Koregaon Dist. Satara and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2023WP/13819/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed this writ petition where the petitioner challenged the School Tribunal's rejection of a fresh appeal filed for termination from service, noting the petitioner sought a second bite at the cherry despite prior dismissal of the same cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs; no specific orders passed as the order was not maintainable.

Sambhaji Jagnnath Bhosale Vs President , D. P… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

Neeta Sawant

1/2 39-WP-13819-2022

21 September 2023.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 13819 OF 2022

¶6

Sambhaji Jagnnath Bhosale ...Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The President, D.P. Bhosale, Shikshan Sanstha and Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Dilip Bodake, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar i/by. Ms. Ashwini Navjyot Bandiwadekar, for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6.

¶11

Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar , AGP for State.

¶12

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 21 September 2023.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

By this petition, Petitioner challenges order dated 24 January 2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur . The Tribunal has proceeded to reject the application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay. While deciding the application, the Tribunal came across the factum of filing of earlier Appeal No. 69/2012 by the Petitioner for the same cause of action for his alleged termination from service. The Tribunal found that Petitioner’s earlier Appeal No.69/2012 was dismissed after considering the merits thereof by a detailed judgment and order dated 16 March 2015. Petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order dated 16 March 2015 before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4874/2015 which

¶15

Neeta Sawant

¶16

2/2 39-WP-13819-2022 21 September 2023.

¶17

came to be dismissed by order dated 11 April 2016. Thereafter, the Petitioner instituted fresh Appeal before the School Tribunal once again challenging his alleged termination from service. After finding that the Petitioner was attempting to have another bite at the cherry, the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay while holding that the Appeal itself is not maintainable.

¶18

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶19

Mr. Bodake, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that while deciding the issue of condonation of delay, the Tribunal could not have gone into the issue of maintainability of the Appeal. His alternate submission is that in the event the Tribunal desired to go into the issue of maintainability, the Petitioner ought to have been put to sufficient notice in that regard. I find both the submissions sought to be canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner to be unfounded. In my view, filing of a fresh Appeal by the Petitioner once again questioning his alleged termination is gross abuse of process of law. Having failed before the School Tribunal in Appeal No.69/2012 and before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4874/2015, the Petitioner showed the audacity to once gain file a fresh Appeal before the Tribunal for the same cause of action. The Tribunal has correctly rejected the application for condonation of delay which has also resulted in rejection of the Appeal. No error can be found in this approach adopted by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed without any orders as to costs.

¶20

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.09.27 14:34:56 +0530

¶21

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Sambhaji Jagnnath Bhosale v. President , D. P. Bhosale, Shikshan Sanstha Nagazari, Tal Koregaon Dist. Satara and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhaji Jagnnath Bhosale v. President , D. P. Bhosale, Shikshan Sanstha Nagazari, Tal Koregaon Dist. Satara and Ors.

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

M/S. Kalyan Roperties,Thr Its Partners Chetan Prabhashankar Joshi Vs Union of India the. the Divisional Engineer (Lm) and Oithers

Bhimrao Govind Chavan Decd Thru Lhrs Vs Arjun Appa Chavan and Anr.

Mohd. Siddik Shaikh and Another Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Canara Bank Circle Office Thr. Assistant General Manager Vs Sanjaykumar Lade and Ors.

Mahesh Pamaji Somshetty Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anmol Pride Co-Op.Housing Society Limited and Others Vs Anmol Prestige Co-Op.Housing Society Limited and Others