Bombay High Court
Kewaldas Chokhaji Satpute vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, ... on 21 November, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp5581.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5581/2005
Kewaldas Chokhaji Satpute,
R/o Kumbhare Nagar,
near B.Ed. College, Gondia,
Tah. and Distt. Gondia. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Education Officer (Sec.),
Zilla Parishad, Gondia.
3. The Head Master,
Dr. Ambedkar Vidyalaya,
Suryatola Road, Gondia.
4. Dikshabhumi Shikshan Sanstha,
through its Secretary, Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri Devdatta Deshpande, counsel h/f Shri A. Parchure, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.M. Uike, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for respondent No.4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 21.11.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the
communication addressed by the Education Officer dated 19 th May, 2005
thereby rejecting the proposal for inclusion of name of the petitioner in the list
2 wp5581.05
of surplus employees to be absorbed in other schools. In the additional
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.4, the respondent No.4
has disputed the very fact regarding the appointment of the petitioner. It is
stated that as a matter of fact the petitioner being aggrieved by the letter dated
14.11.2006 directing the petitioner not to enter in the school and sign the
muster roll had approached the learned School Tribunal by way of Appeal
No.STC/54/2006. It is submitted that the learned School Tribunal has
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 21.10.2011. The challenge to
the same by way of Writ Petition No.192/2012 has also failed inasmuch as the
petition has been dismissed on 25.7.2013.
2. The perusal of the judgment and order of the School Tribunal would
reveal that the learned Tribunal has come to the specific conclusion that the
petitioner has utterly failed to prove that he was appointed by the respondent
Management. In view of the findings negativing the claim of the petitioner of
having been appointed in the respondent No.3 School and the same being
upheld by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any merit in the present
petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances, the
parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
