Lord Buddhas Sariputra Dnyan Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, Brahmapuri Thr. Its President And Another v. Ku. Ujwala Vijay Sukhdeve And Others

MCA1338-18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

M.C.A. (Review) No. 1338 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.1459 of 2015 (D) (Lord Buddha's Sariputra Dnyan Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, Gandhi Nagar and another .vs. Ku. Ujwala Vijay Sukhdeve and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OfÏce Notes, OfÏce Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's orders Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : Manish Pitale, J.

DATED : December 21, 2018.

Heard Mr. Bhandarkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants.

2.

This review application is filed on behalf of the applicants (original respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in writ petition) seeking review of the judgment and order dated 02.11.2018 passed by this Court, whereby the writ petition of the original petitioner had been allowed. 3.

The contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that if Ordinance No.82 of 1981 is perused, particularly the second proviso to Clause 3 thereof, it would be evident that when a certain contingency is not provided in Ordinance No.24, reliance could be placed on Ordinance No. 122 of the University. It is contended that since there is no provision in Ordinance No.24 as regards termination of services of a probationer, Ordinance No.122 would apply in the case of the non-applicant herein (original petitioner in the writ petition). 4.

The judgment of which review is sought

MCA1338-18.odt clearly holds that Ordinance No.122 of the University will not apply to the case of the non-applicant (original petitioner) for the reason that she was appointed in the College afÏliated to University to whom Ordinance No.24 and Statute No.53 of the University would apply. The Ordinance No.122 applies to persons who are employed in Colleges run by the University itself. It has been held specifically that the Ordinance No.122 on one hand and Ordinance No.24 as well as Statute No.53 of the University on the other hand operate in different fields and that, therefore, the advantage of Ordinance No.122 cannot be taken by the applicants in order to deal with the case of the non-applicant (original petitioner). A perusal of Ordinance No.

82 of 1981, which is relied upon on behalf of the applicants does not take the case of the applicants any further in order to demonstrate how Ordinance No.122 of the University could be made applicable to the non-applicant (original petitioner). There is no error apparent on the face of the record demonstrated by the applicants and hence the review application is dismissed.

5.

It is clarified that if respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition and applicants herein are entitled to reimbursement for payment of consequential benefits to the non-applicant(original petitioner), they may apply to the State Authorities in respect of the same. Such application shall be decided in accordance with law. JUDGE halwai