Marathwada Sarvajanik Shikshan v. Kalyan & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. A grievance is made that the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal has made comments touching the merits of the controversy involved in the matter. The observations made by the presiding Officer, School Tribunal while dealing with the application, seeking condonation of delay, shall…
Judgment
Shri. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 8th April, 2010 PER COURT :
An application presented by the employee to the School Tribunal, requesting for condonation of the delay of about 8 months in tendering appeal, has been considered favourably and the appeal has been accepted after condoning the delay by the deciding authority. The order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, allowing the application, seeking condonation of delay presented by the respondent teacher is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
As the School Tribunal has exercised discretion and taken up the 2 appeal for consideration by condoning the delay caused in approaching the School Tribunal, in exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for.
A grievance is made that the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal has made comments touching the merits of the controversy involved in the matter. The observations made by the presiding Officer, School Tribunal while dealing with the application, seeking condonation of delay, shall not be taken into account by the appellate authority while dealing with the matter on its own merits. Petition stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp1328.10
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 08 Apr 2010. The bench was R M BORDE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.