Disposed¶29

Dhondappa Kundlik Sakhare v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Dept. of Education and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2025WP/133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 133 of 2024, Dhondappa Kundlik Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Bombay High Court, decided 5 February 2025 (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.). Employee terminated/declared surplus due to reduction in student strength; petition seeking direction to decide representation dated 17.07.2023 held infructuous and disposed of with liberty to challenge the surplus declaration before the appropriate forum. Keywords: surplus employee, termination, representation, infructuous writ petition, liberty to avail remedy, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioner to avail of a remedy permissible in law, if aggrieved by the surplus declaration or on any other cause of action. ¶29

Dhondappa Kundlik Sakhare vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Dept. of Education and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

13-WP-133-2024-(C).odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 133 OF 2024

¶4

Dhondappa Kundlik Sakhare ...Petitioner Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ajit Alange, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

¶10

¶11

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUNNY SUNNY ANKUSHRAO ANKUSHRAO THOTE THOTE Date: 2025.02.07 12:05:03 +0530

¶13

DATE : 5^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

On 10^th January, 2024, this Court had passed the

¶16

following order :-

¶17

“ The Petitioner seeks a simplicitor direction to decide Petitioner's representation dated 17 July 2023. However, we note that the Petitioner is terminated from service by the Respondent-Management on the ground that there is reduction in students strength and the Petitioner has become surplus. Therefore, unless there is a challenge to this order, merely making a representation would not achieve the Petitioner's purpose. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to examine the position as to whether substantive proceedings need to be filed in the appropriate forum.

¶18

2. Stand over to 26 February 2024.”

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

SUNNY THOTE

¶21

13-WP-133-2024-(C).odt

¶22

On 26^th February, 2024, this Court had passed the

¶23

following order :-

¶24

“ A request is made on behalf of the learned counsel for the Petitioner for adjournment. We have already passed order on 10 January 2024. Stand over to 16 April 2024.

¶25

2. We make it clear that if no statement is made on the next date, the Petitioner will be solely responsible for the delay that may be caused in approaching the concerned Court or Tribunal.”

¶26

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that he

¶27

has returned the brief and issued no objection to the Petitioner to engage a new Advocate in December, 2014. The learned Advocate has not taken steps for discharge in view of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

¶28

We find from this Petition that the Petitioner had approached this Court only to seek a decision on a pending representation dated 17^th July, 2023. This Court has recorded on 10^th January, 2024, that he has been declared surplus. As such, this Petition is rendered infructuous.

¶29

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off

¶30

2 of 3

¶31

SUNNY THOTE

¶32

13-WP-133-2024-(C).odt

¶33

with liberty to the Petitioner to avail of a remedy, as may be permissible in law, if he has a grievance on having been declared surplus or if he has any other cause of action.

¶34

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶35

3 of 3

¶36

SUNNY THOTE

Dhondappa Kundlik Sakhare v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Dept. of Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhondappa Kundlik Sakhare v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Dept. of Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Beena Kamalavijayan vs Hyderabad Sind National Collegiate Board through Its Secretary

Ajaykumar Basavraj Phutane and Anr. vs Shri. Gurubasav Vidyamandir and Junior College, Sankh and Ors.

Sanjay Baburao Naik vs the State of Maharahshtra Throu. Sec. School Education Dept and Ors.

Savita Prabhakar Sawant vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Anil P Bodke vs Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Mumbai Port Authority

Kantilal S/O Chandrakant Khade Patil and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtera and Anr.