Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Sarika Janardhan Gade vs Vidyanath Shikshan Sanstha, Beed And ... on 21 December, 2017 cites

Anna Manikrao Pethe vs Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, ... on 18 September, 1997

The correctness of the law laid down in earlier the two Division Bench judgments of this Court; one in the matter of Anna Manikrao Pethe Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal ( 1997 (3) Mh.L.J. 697) and the other in the matter of Shailaja Ashokrao Walse Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 291), was questioned in the said Full Bench judgment. In both the aforesaid judgments, the respective Division Benches have held that where the appointment of a teacher has not been approved by the Education Officer, the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:37:51 ::: 35 WP NO.8504/2014gr appeal filed by the teacher against an order of termination must fail on that ground alone. The Full Bench held that both the aforesaid judgments were not reflecting correct position of law. The Full Bench held that the grant of approval by the Education Officer is not a condition precedent to hold order of appointment valid and the approval relates to disbursement of grant in aid to the management and want of approval will not invalidate the order of appointment if it is otherwise valid. Referring to the ratio laid down as above in the aforesaid judgment, the School Tribunal has held that merely because the petitioners possess the approval to their appointments by the Education Officer, would not validate their appointments. In paragraph No.48 of the impugned judgment, the School Tribunal has further observed that the respondent no.3 Shri Bhanudas Deshmukh has already challenged the said order of approval in Writ Petition No.5492/2011 and the same is pending. The School Tribunal has further observed that when the issue of validity of the appointment order dated 23.5.2011 was under consideration of the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, it was not open for the petitioners to take protection of the said approval order to justify the validity of their appointments. From the material on record it is quite clear that the observations so made by the Tribunal are not only ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:37:51 ::: 36 WP NO.8504/2014gr legally incorrect but are also factually incorrect. It is the matter of record that Shri Bhanudas Deshmukh withdrew Writ Petition No.5492/2011 on 30th of October, 2012, i.e. prior to about one and half years of the decision rendered by the School Tribunal. If the same logic is to be applied, as has been applied by the School Tribunal that when the validity of the approval order was under challenge the petitioners cannot take protection of the said order, it has to be held that it was not open and permissible for Shri Bhanudas Deshmukh to challenge the order of approval on the same grounds when he had given up the said challenge by withdrawing the said writ petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 56 - B H Marlapalle - Full Document

Shailaja Ashokrao Walse vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 7 December, 1998

The correctness of the law laid down in earlier the two Division Bench judgments of this Court; one in the matter of Anna Manikrao Pethe Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal ( 1997 (3) Mh.L.J. 697) and the other in the matter of Shailaja Ashokrao Walse Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 291), was questioned in the said Full Bench judgment. In both the aforesaid judgments, the respective Division Benches have held that where the appointment of a teacher has not been approved by the Education Officer, the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:37:51 ::: 35 WP NO.8504/2014gr appeal filed by the teacher against an order of termination must fail on that ground alone. The Full Bench held that both the aforesaid judgments were not reflecting correct position of law. The Full Bench held that the grant of approval by the Education Officer is not a condition precedent to hold order of appointment valid and the approval relates to disbursement of grant in aid to the management and want of approval will not invalidate the order of appointment if it is otherwise valid. Referring to the ratio laid down as above in the aforesaid judgment, the School Tribunal has held that merely because the petitioners possess the approval to their appointments by the Education Officer, would not validate their appointments. In paragraph No.48 of the impugned judgment, the School Tribunal has further observed that the respondent no.3 Shri Bhanudas Deshmukh has already challenged the said order of approval in Writ Petition No.5492/2011 and the same is pending. The School Tribunal has further observed that when the issue of validity of the appointment order dated 23.5.2011 was under consideration of the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, it was not open for the petitioners to take protection of the said approval order to justify the validity of their appointments. From the material on record it is quite clear that the observations so made by the Tribunal are not only ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:37:51 ::: 36 WP NO.8504/2014gr legally incorrect but are also factually incorrect. It is the matter of record that Shri Bhanudas Deshmukh withdrew Writ Petition No.5492/2011 on 30th of October, 2012, i.e. prior to about one and half years of the decision rendered by the School Tribunal. If the same logic is to be applied, as has been applied by the School Tribunal that when the validity of the approval order was under challenge the petitioners cannot take protection of the said order, it has to be held that it was not open and permissible for Shri Bhanudas Deshmukh to challenge the order of approval on the same grounds when he had given up the said challenge by withdrawing the said writ petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 29 - B H Marlapalle - Full Document
1