← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2879/1995rejected at admission stage

Santoba Nagoba Kondarwar. v. Pratibha Niketan Education Society Nanded.

2016-06-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.R. Bora2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD (1) WP 2879/1998 22 WRIT PETITION NO. 2879 OF 1995 Santoba Nagoba Kondarear, Age-55 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Ambedkar Nagar, Near Bhagyanagar, Nanded.

... Petitioner

VERSUS

1.

Pratibha Niketan Education Society, Nanded, through its Secretary, Sakharam Digamber Mahajan 2.

Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded.

3.

The State of Maharashtra 4.

Renukadas s/o. Govindrao Deshmukh Age - 53 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Sarafa, Lohar Galli, Nanded.

... Respondents ...

Mr. N.P. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner;

Mr. P.G.Borade, AGP. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3; Mr. A.B. Chalak, Advocate h/f Mr.S.B. Talekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4;

...

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

Dated: June 22, 2016 ...

PER COURT :- 1.

The present petition is filed taking exception to the order dated 28th February, 1994, by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No.190/1992. The present petitioner had filed the aforesaid appeal challenging the decision of the AGP/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD (2) WP 2879/1998 management appointing respondent no.4 in the said appeal, namely, Renukadas Govindrao Deshmukh on the post of Headmaster of Pratibha Niketan High School i.e. Respondent no.2 in the said appeal and seeking his appointment on the said post. It was the contention of the present petitioner that he was superseded while making appointment on the post of Headmaster on the Pratibha Niketan high School, Nanded. The School Tribunal, after having assessed the evidence adduced before it, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present petition. 2.

After having gone through the impugned judgment and the grounds of objection raised in the petition in exception to the said judgment, it does not appear to me that, any interference is required in the impugned judgment. Even otherwise, by passage of time, the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Rule discharged.

( P.R. BORA, J. ) AGP/-