Jankalyan Bahuuddeshiya ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13018 Bom

                                                                            cao1910.2019.odt
                                          1/3




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

                            CAO NO.1910/2019 IN
                           MCA ST.NO.18737/2019 IN
                          WRIT PETITION NO.2369/2018

             Jankalyan Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Nagpur and others
                                           -Vs.-
                          State of Maharashtra and another
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                 Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicants.
                  None for the petitioners.
                  Mr. I.J. Damle, AGP for respondents.


                            CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE
                                    AND M.W.CHANDWANI, JJ.

DATE : 14.12.2022

Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Damle, learned AGP for the respondents.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing review application is condoned. The application is allowed.

CAO No.1911/2019

3. Heard.

cao1910.2019.odt

4 The applicants have filed this application for grant of leave to file review application.

5. For the reasons stated in the application, leave as sought for is granted.

MCA St.No.18737/2019

6. Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicants, who are seeking review of the judgment delivered by this Court on 17.7.2019 in Writ Petition No.2369/2018. We have also heard Shri Damle, learned AGP for the respondents - the State of Maharashtra. Nobody appears for the original petitioners although they have been duly served with notice.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the judgment dated 17.7.2019 has been procured by the original petitioners by suppressing material facts from this Court and also by not joining the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, though a necessary party, as party respondent and also these applicants, who are the teachers senior to the original petitioner no.3 and as a result, bypassing the rule of seniority and claim of the applicants for their transfer from unaided section to aided section, the junior teacher came to be transferred to aided section from the unaided section. He further submits that the original petitioner no.3 as well as original petitioner nos.1 and 2 acted in collusion for serving

cao1910.2019.odt

their own interest, thereby causing great injustice to the applicants.

8. These are also averments made in the application and they have not been denied in any manner by the original petitioners as they have chosen not to file any reply.

9. The learned AGP submits that appropriate order be passed in the matter.

10. Considering the fact that there is no contest made by the original petitioners to this application and also the fact that the injustice having been caused to the applicants inspite of they being senior to the original petitioner no.3, is manifest on record, we are of the view that this application deserves to be allowed.

11. The application is allowed and the judgment sought to be reviewed by the applicants is hereby recalled.

12. Let the petition be placed before appropriate bench for hearing on admission. No costs.

                         JUDGE                                           JUDGE




Ambulkar.