Dr. Bhuwneshwari W/O. Ashok Mehre v. Parampujya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Smarak Samiti, Nagpur And ORS.

944.WP.588.2025.odt 1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

C IVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 370 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 588 OF 2025 Dr. Bhuwneshwari w/o. Ashok Mehre Vs. Parampujya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Smarak Samiti, Diksha Bhumi, Nagpur & Ors.

__________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. Mohan Sudame, Sr. Advocate a/b. Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate for respondent no.1.

Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3. Mr. M.P. Kariya, Advocate for the applicant in CAW No.370/2025. C ORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. D ATE : 4 th MARCH, 2025.

P.C.

1.

The applicant claims to be the complainant whose complaint led to the passing of the impugned order in this petition.

2.

It is the case of the applicant that she be permitted to intervene as she has brought to the notice of respondent no.1-Management about the illegality committed by the petitioner and as such she has every right and locus in the matter.

3.

The prayer is opposed by the counsel for the

944.WP.588.2025.odt 2/3 petitioner.

4.

We have considered the claim put-forth in the application.

5.

It is not the case of the applicant that she is one of the candidates, who is claiming the appointment to the post of Principal.

6.

Once the applicant claims that she has lodged a complaint against the original petitioner to the Management, her role in the matter comes to an end as it is the Management who has passed the order impugned. If the petition is allowed or dismissed, same will not have any adverse consequence on the civil rights of the applicant.

7.

That being so, the application stands rejected. 8.

In response to the Court's query, it is informed that since the College Tribunal is not functioning, the petitioner has no other remedy but to approach this Court. In response to the Court's query, it is claimed that, if so required, the petitioner shall be filing an appeal against the impugned order.

C IVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO.

OF 2025 9.

Learned counsel Mr. Gopal Sharma holding for Mr. S.D. Abhyankar submits that the amendment be not allowed as it is open for the petitioner to pursue the same

944.WP.588.2025.odt 3/3 in an independent proceedings.

10.

Since the amendment is based on subsequent development, the prayer for amendment stands allowed. 11.

The amendment be carried out within a period of one week.

12.

Within two weeks thereafter, reply be placed on record.

13.

Stand over to 03.04.2025.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) Vijay Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/03/2025 19:05:47