← Library
Bombay High CourtCA/7522/2018disposed offdismissed for default

Vasant Yashwant Borase v. Chandrajit Gokulrao Bhamre And Others

2018-10-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale3 pages

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7522 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13005 OF 2017 Vasant s/o Yashwant Borase, Age: 40 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner R/o Krushna Nagar, Near Boys Remand Home, Mogalai, Lane No.1, Sakri Road, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

..APPLICANT

VERSUS

Chandrajit s/o Gokulrao Bhamre, Age: 37 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Malpur, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule & ors ..RESPONDENTS Mr G.R. Syed, Advocate for applicants;

Mr V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6;

Mr S.M. Ganachari, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Mr V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 11 to CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & MANISH PITALE,JJ.

DATE : 3rd OCTOBER, 2018 ORAL ORDER :

The applicant seeks prayer to intervene in the petition and further prays for allowing the him to intervene in the petition No.13005 of 2017

(2) as party respondent.

2.

It is stated in the application that the applicant is whistle blower and there are certain illegalities committed by respondent No.11 who is in habit of recruiting various posts without following due process of law. It is stated in the application that without following mandate of provisions of law, the petitioners were appointed, who were not possessing requisite qualification of the Teachers Eligibility Test, which is a condition precedent as per resolution dated 13th February, 2013. Now, the appointment of the petitioners are made in 2012. The applicant who is claiming himself as whistle blower cannot be permitted to participate in a proceeding wherein the issue is raised of rejection order passed by the Education Officer. The applicant wants to espouse the scope of the petition claiming himself as a whistle blower.

3.

We are unable to accept the submission of

(3) the applicant and as no substantial ground is coming forth to permit the applicant to participate in the petition as party respondent, the prayer for intervention in the petition is meritless. Resultantly, the application is rejected.

(MANISH PITALE) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE Tupe S.U.

Tupe by S.U. Tupe Date:

2018.10.06 11:00:13 +0530