Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Umesh Balkrishna Vispute (Shri) vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 1 August, 2000

R/O Kalika Nagar vs Nutan Mahila Sarvodaya Balvikas on 11 December, 2008

23- In so far as the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Umesh Balkrishna Vispute Vs. State of Maharashtra [cited supra] is concerned it has been held that while deciding the issue of supersession, the dispute regarding seniority list can also be gone into. No doubt that while considering the question of supersession, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:08:30 ::: 19 learned Tribunal would be entitled to go into the question of inter-se seniority, but however in the facts of the present case, the dispute is not regarding seniority but the qualification of the petitioner or the respondent no.3 on the relevant date to hold the office of the Head Mistress.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Namdeo Vishnu Sase vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 March, 2023

This decision is no more good law since the said decision has been overruled by decision in Umesh's case cited supra. I do not propose to enter into the question as to who is senior amongst petitioner and the respondents. That question can be determined by the School Tribunal if at all the respondents approach the School Tribunal. In this petition the petitioner has only challenged the authority of the Education Officer to decide the seniority after he was promoted and I find that decision of the Education Officer is patently illegal. In the circumstances the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Education Officer on 29.12.2008 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs."
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M S Patil - Full Document

Namdeo Vishnu Sase vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 March, 2023

This decision is no more good law since the said decision has been overruled by decision in Umesh's case cited supra. I do not propose to enter into the question as to who is senior amongst petitioner and the respondents. That question can be determined by the School Tribunal if at all the respondents approach the School Tribunal. In this petition the petitioner has only challenged the authority of the Education Officer to decide the seniority after he was promoted and I find that decision of the Education Officer is patently illegal. In the circumstances the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Education Officer on 29.12.2008 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs."
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M S Patil - Full Document

Lakhwinder Kaur Gurai vs Garison Children Education Society And ... on 23 June, 2006

In Umesh Balkrishna (supra) the Division Bench therefore held that the finalization of the seniority list under Rule 12 is not final and conclusive and is not binding on the Tribunal, particularly having regard to the non-obstante provision in Section 9(1) and "the dispute relating to seniority list can also be considered by the Tribunal as an incidental question while deciding the controversy in regard to supersession." In other words, when an employee who has been superseded on the basis of a seniority list challenges the decision of supersession, it is open to the Tribunal as an incidental question to determine as to whether the seniority list on the basis of which the supersession has taken place was valid or otherwise.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Smt. Pushpanjali Subodha Shenvi vs Nagrik Seva Mandal Through ... on 28 July, 2016

34. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this court in case of Umesh Balkrishna Vispute (supra) and in case of Anjali Jayant Khati (supra) on the ground that respondent no.4 had already obtained the qualification of Art Teachers' Diploma much prior to the appointment of the petitioner and would submit that the respondent no.4 was thus a qualified trained graduate teacher on the date of the appointment of the respondent no.4 in the year 1991 itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Shri. Salim Gulab Mulla vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 31 August, 2016

This court in case of Bhagwant Sheshrao Borale (supra) after adverting the judgment of this court in case of Umesh B.Vispute vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 564 has held that once the promotion is granted and the appointment is made, the question of seniority has to be decided by the school tribunal and the education officer will have no jurisdiction to fix the seniority and to demote a person already promoted.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Bharatiya Shikshan Mandal Through Its ... vs Shri Milind S/O Namdeorao Kamble And ... on 25 July, 2018

24. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 then submitted that though the appointment of respondent No.1 on the post of Assistant Head Master was quashed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal in an appeal, his placement with the society as a Assistant Head Master was maintained. Thus, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 is the senior most teacher in the school and he is in continuous employment with petitioner No.1 - society. He then submitted that learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal has rightly considered the placement of respondent No.1, whose appointment was in the year 1983 and who acquired the qualifications of M.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed. in the year 1990, 1992 and 2000, respectively and was placed in category 'B', whereas Mrs Sulekar ::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2018 01:32:47 ::: 1277.15wp (16) was appointed in the year 1985 and was placed in category 'C' and acquired qualification of M.Ed. in the year 2002 and allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1. He then submitted that no error is committed by learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal. He relied on the judgments in the matter of Prafulla Kumar Pallai Vs. State of Orissa & ors., reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 777, Londhe Prakash Bhagwan Vs. Dattatraya Eknath Mane & ors., reported in 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. 21, in the matter of Nandkishor s/o Damodhar Wadgaonkar vs. Gajanan s/o Uttamrao Pede, reported in 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 343, in the matter of Umesh Balkrishna Vispute vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 564 and in the matter of Sukhdeo Ragho Deore vs. Chairman, Gram Shikshan Samiti, Umrane, Dist Nasik & ors., reported in 2002 (1) Mh.L.J. 885.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P B Varale - Full Document

Dr. Gajanan Ghanashyam Muley vs The Director Of Education, Directorate ... on 19 July, 2024

43. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 University, in support of her contention that there are disputed question of facts and as alternate remedy is available, the petition is not maintainable, relied on Umesh Balkrishna Vispute (supra), wherein this Court held that the determination of question of inter se seniority always involve disputed questions of fact. The disputed questions of fact involved and sought to be raised cannot be satisfactorily gone into or, adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We feel that this Court must exercise judicial restraint so far as judicial interference in the cases of this nature are concerned. The Court can refuse to exercise its discretion in a given case. It is also held that when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not the invoke writ jurisdiction to seek the prerogative writ.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M S Jawalkar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next