0705lpa191.12

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 191 OF 2012

IN WRIT PETITION No. 1097 OF 2012.

Ishwar Shrawan Nikhare

-VERSUS-

The State of Maharashtra and others.

_______________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions

Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

______________________________________________________________________________

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI

& A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

DATED : MAY 07, 2012.

Heard Shri S.R. Narnaware, learned

Counsel for appellant and Ms. T. Khan, learned A.G.P.

for respondent nos. 1 and 4.

The services of appellant were terminated

after his caste claim came to be invalidated. He

challenged that termination before the School

Tribunal. As required by judgment in case of Anna

Manikrao Pethe .vrs. Presiding Officer, School

0705lpa191.12

(2)

Tribunal and others. (1997 (3) Mh,.L.J. 697), the

School Tribunal framed preliminary issue and

dismissed the appeal, since appointment was found to

be made not in accordance with law. That judgment of

School Tribunal was questioned before the learned

Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1097/2012. The

learned Single Judge has maintained the judgment of

School Tribunal.

Shri Narnaware, learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant/petitioner contends that

the Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of

Ganesh Rambhau Kahale .vrs. State of Maharashtra

and others (2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 788) while holding grant

of protection in such matter as under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India, observed in paragraph no.14 that

Division Bench judgment in case of Prashant Haribhau

Khawas .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (2008

(2) Mh.L.J. 322), does not lay correct law. He points

out that Special Civil Petition (Civil) No.24531 of 2008

filed against this Division Bench judgment has been

dismissed on 30.03.2012. Therefore, law as laid down

0705lpa191.12

(3)

therein is found correct by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Hence, the observations in paragraph no.14 of the Full

Bench Judgment are no longer valid.

In the alternative and without prejudice, he

states that the appellant cited various judgments before

the learned Single Judge and they have been only

mentioned. The employer remained absent and

hence, there was no judgment cited against the

petitioner. The learned Single Judge however, has

referred to certain judgments and delivered verdict

against the appellant. According to him, this is not in

accordance with law, as the appellant did not get any

opportunity.

Ms. Khan, learned A.G.P. appearing for

respondent nos. 1 and 4, is supporting the order of

learned Single Judge as also the judgment of School

Tribunal.

Dismissal of Special Leave Petition on

30.03.2012 in motion, does not have any effect, in so

far as the observations of Full Bench in paragraph

no.14 of the judgment referred supra, are concerned.

0705lpa191.12

(4)

There various judgments are looked into and the Full

Bench has found that protection granted by the

Hon'ble Apex Court was under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India. Merely because Special Leave

Petition against the Division Bench judgment was

dismissed in motion, that dismissal does not invalidate

the findings arrived at by the Full Bench.

Contention that the learned Single Judge

has not given reasons for not accepting the precedents

cited by the appellant, is also misconceived. The

petition has been dismissed in motion hearing after

noticing the facts. The judgments holding the field

have been relied upon to support that view. We

therefore, do not see any jurisdictional error. Letters

Patent Appeal is, therefore, rejected. No costs.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Rgd