Dismissed¶3

Yogesh Prakash Umak v. Nikita Lakshman Tikhile and Others

Bombay HC6 Aug 2025WP/3448/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Writ Petition No.3448 of 2025; decided 06-08-2025 by Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.; Yogesh Prakash Umak v. Nikita Lakshman Tikhile and others. Challenge to School Tribunal, Amravati order dated 03.12.2024 rejecting the Head Master's application for dismissal of Appeal No.38/2023 (employee's termination appeal); grounds urged were appointment not in accordance with procedure, false statement and suppression of material facts; Tribunal directed these would be considered at the stage of deciding the controversy; no perversity found; petitioner free to raise issues before the Tribunal; writ petition dismissed, no costs. No statutes or precedents cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶3

Yogesh Prakash Umak Vs Nikita Lakshman Tikhile and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

wp3448.25.O.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3448 OF 2025

¶5

(Yogesh Prakash Umak Vs. Nikita Lakshman Tikhile and others)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar’s Orders.

¶7

Yogesh P. Umak, petitioner in-person. Ms. P. C. Bawankule, AGP for Respondent No.3/State.

¶8

CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE: 6 th AUGUST, 2025.

¶9

Heard the petitioner in-person and learned AGP for respondent No.3.

¶10

The petitioner has filed instant petition in his personal capacity although mentioning that he is Head Master. The petitioner has challenged order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the School Tribunal on his application for dismissal of the Appeal No.38/2023. The petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 had filed Appeal No.38/2023 before the School Tribunal, Amravati challenging her otherwise termination on several grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. In this appeal, the school is added as respondent No.2 through its Head Master. The appeal is pending adjudication and the respondents management and the Head Master had filed their respective replies before the School Tribunal. The petitioner submits that during the pendency of the petition, he has filed an application for dismissal of the

¶11

wp3448.25.O.odt

¶12

¶13

appeal by contending that the appellant – employee was not appointed in accordance with the procedure and that she had made false statement and suppressed material facts and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He submits that on this application, the appellant had submitted its say and thereafter, the Tribunal has passed the order dated 03.12.2024 by which the application is rejected.

¶14

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has observed that the grievance raised in the application would be decided while deciding the issues at the stage of consideration of the controversy and so also the contentions about false statements or suppression of facts will also be considered while considering the controversy and after considering the submissions, the application is rejected. On perusal of the impugned order, I find no perversity in the reasoning. The petitioner is entitled to raise the issues before the School Tribunal. The instant petition deserves to be dismissed and same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶15

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶16

NSN

Yogesh Prakash Umak v. Nikita Lakshman Tikhile and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Prakash Umak v. Nikita Lakshman Tikhile and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jijau Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Amravati, Thr. Chief Executive Officer Vs the Honble Minister, Co-Operation Department, Mumbai and Others

Vikas S/O Pralhad Rathod vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Mumbai and Another

Moh. Laik Moh. Hafij Ansari vs the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Tukaram @ Bandubhau Kisanrao Tagde vs Union of India, Thr. the Secretary, Ministry for Labour and Employment, Delhi and Ors.

Pradeep Thankappan Pillai vs Kishori Thankappan Pillai

Mehel S/O Nandkishor Sharma and Another Vs Smt. Rekha Nandkishor Sharma and Others