SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Bom) 262

F.I.REBELLO, S.P.KURDUKAR
Nishad Sadashiv Pawar – Appellant
Versus
Dnyanasadhana College – Respondent


Judgment

F. I. REBELLO, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Heard forthwith. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail in view of the order to be passed. It appears from the record that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Assistant teachers. They belong to non B. C. category. Petitioner Nos. 3,4 and 5 have been appointed as Shikshan Sevaks. The Petitioner No. 3 belongs to O. B. C. The Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 to N. B. C. Their appointments were approved. Subsequently the approval was cancelled. They approached this court and the matter was remanded back for consideration. On remand, the Deputy Director of Education for the reasons set out in his order has rejected the case of the Petitioners for being treated as regularly appointed Assistant Teachers/ shikshan Sevaks.

( 2 ) THE Petitioners in Ground (c) have raised the following contentions :

"the Petitioners submit that the college has a total of 39 teachers which includes the petitioners. 16 of these teachers including one of the Petitioners belong to the reserved category. Reservation quota required to be maintained is 34%. Therefore, 13 are required to belong to reserved category out of the 39 teachers. At present however, there ar




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top