Rajendra Natthuji Randive v. The President,Sadbhavana Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Bothli And Others

1 cao692.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.692 OF 2015 WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.4439 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4433 OF 2003 (D) (Shri Rajendra Nathuji Randive ..vs.. The President, Shri Sadbhavana Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Bothali and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.P. Thakare, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner, Shri D.M. Kale, AGP for the non-applicant/respondent No.4. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 15-07-2015 This is an application filed by the original petitioner praying for condonation of delay of 199 days in filing the application seeking review of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.4433/2003. As the original matter is of 2003, I have examined merits of the review application also.

2.

The claim of the applicant/petitioner for reinstatement has not been accepted by the School Tribunal and the order passed by the School Tribunal is maintained by this Court by judgment dated 17-07-2014. The claim as made by the applicant/petitioner is not accepted in view of the conclusions of this Court recorded in the judgment given in Writ Petition No.33/2006 which was filed by other employees of the same school in which the applicant/petitioner had been

2 cao692.15 working. The claim of those employees was not accepted by this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.33/2006 as it was found that their names were not included in the list of employees prepared by the management at the time of transfer of the school. The name of the applicant/petitioner was also not found in the list of employees prepared by the management.

The applicant/petitioner has not been able to show that he was in the employment after 03-05-1997.

3.

I do not find any error apparent on the record which necessitates the review of the judgment. The only inadvertent mistake of showing the petitioner as an "Assistant Teacher" is required to be corrected and it has to be substituted by showing his designation as "Junior Clerk".

4.

The civil application praying for condonation of delay and the miscellaneous civil application for review of the judgment are dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE pma