CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 1997 › Lokshikishan P Mandal v. Rajendra Kumar a Mahalle

Lokshikishan P Mandal v. Rajendra Kumar a Mahalle

Supreme Court of India · 5 May 1997 · [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 89

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
5 May 1997
Case no.
C.A. No. 3619 of 1997
Reported as
[1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 89
Result
Appeal(s) allowed
Bench
K. Ramaswamy, D.P. Wadhwa
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

PETITIONER:
LOKSHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJENDRAKUMAR AJABRAO MAHALLE & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT

HEADNOTE

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.

This appeal by special leave arises from the interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, made on February 19, 1997 in Writ Petitioner No.3520/95.

The respondent was appointed on July 9, 1992 for a period of one year. The appointment order read as under:

"Your appointment is purely

temporary for a period of one year

from 9.7.92 to end of Session, in

the leave/deputation/vacancy. After

expiry of the above period your

service shall stand terminated

without any notice."

Subsequently, on appointment was given to the respondent as indicated in the order of the Division Deputy Director of Education (Genl), dated May 19, 1994 sent on May 21, 1995 which reads as under:

"That due to refusal of sanction

and provision from the State

Government for the year 1993-94, no

sanction was granted for any class

on grant-in-aid basis. Information

to all Heads of Schools should be

sent through Deputy Director of

Education, Education Officer

(Secondary) and Education

Inspector, Bombay."

Thus, it could be seen that for the year 1993-94, no appointment came to be made. The respondent filed an appeal in the Tribunal for direction. The Tribunal held that he had been appointed against a permanent vacancy and the Head Master has no authority to pass an order of termination. In the face of the appointment order, such finding recorded by the Tribunal is clearly unwarranted. When a writ petition was filed seeking suspension of the order, the High Court vacated the order of stay made in the impugned order. In the aforestated facts, the case was clearly for the stay of Tribunal order pending disposal of the writ petition.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court stands set aside. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

Ask CaseMinister about Lokshikishan P Mandal v. Rajendra Kumar a Mahalle

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp