Central Tanzim Committee Thr. Its ... vs Nusrat Yasmeen W/O Ashfaq Ahmed ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3703 Bom

                                                                                                  (1)                                                  4wp2383.23

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

                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 2383 OF 2023
Central Tanzim Committee and anr__ Vs. ___Nusrat Yasmeen Ashfaq Ahmed and anr
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                     Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. A.D.Mohgaonkar, Advocate for petitioners


                                                                           CORAM :                     AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                                                                           DATE  :                     13/04/2023


                                               1]                           Heard Mr. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel
                                               for the petitioners.

                                               2]                           The petition challenges the judgment

dated 13.2.2023 passed by the learned School Tribunal, allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.1.

3] It is contended that in spite of the order dated 17.3.2021 in W.P.No. 373/2018 (pg.156, para 8) and so also the order dated 6.10.2022 in W.P. No.2015/2022 (pg.233), the impugned judgment does not consider the entire position in its totality, inasmuch as the entire submission is only in paras 31 to 34 on all the three issues, without taking into consideration the proposition contended that though it was claimed by respondent no.1 that she had been appointed on 31.9.2008 for the period of three

(2) 4wp2383.23

years, the approval (pg.53) is claimed to be w.e.f. 1.9.2008, even prior to her appointment. The second approval at page 45 contemplates her date of appointment as 26.6.2009, whereas no such order is alleged to be in existence. It is also contended that there is no document on record from the management indicating its consent to the appointment, for which my attention is invited to page 55 and it is contended that since the then Head Mistress was the mother of the respondent no1, she has manipulated all the documents.

4] Issue notice for final disposal returnable on 2.5.2023.

5] The petitioners to serve the respondents by all modes permissible.

6] Till the returnable date, the effect and operation of the impugned order shall stand stayed.

JUDGE Rvjalit