Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DAYANAND VEDIC VIDHALAYA SANCHALK SAMITI versus EDUCATION INSPECTOR, GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR.

Decided
25 October 2007
Judges listed
A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 705 · 2007 INSC 1105
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 705, margin F

This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned interlocutory order dated 23rd November, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 2209 of2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay. The prayer in that writ petition was for quashing the order of the Education Inspector, Greater Mumbai dated 30.9.2000. The order dated 30.9.2000 states that since certain appointments of teachers were made by the Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya, Mumbai in violation of the Rules, approval for such appointments is rejected.

p. 706, margin A

In our opinion in such a petition there was no scope for grant of any interim order, and instead the writ petition should have been decided finally at an early date. However, what the High Court has done by the impugned interim order is to direct grant of ad hoc approval to some teachers.

p. 706, margin A

This is a strange order passed by the High Court.

p. 706, margin C

There is no provision in the rules for grant of ad ~oc approval. Either approval is granted, or the prayer is rejected. There is no scope for a half way measure like that adopted by the High Court. We cannot appreciate such kind of interim orders which really amount to grant of final relief. This kind of practice of granting such interim orders should be discontinued and should not be encouraged.

p. 706, margin D

However in this appeal against the order of the High Court, this Comt on 29th January, 2001 observed that "the operation of the order under Challenge shall remain stayed unless the order under challenge has already given effect to." The writ petition is still pending before the High Court of Bombay. We request the High Court to dispose off the matter finally, if not disposed off so far, preferably within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this order is received by it.

p. 706, margin E

The interim order dated 29th January, 2001 passed by this Court is made absolute, but shall only continue ~ill the final disposal of the writ petition by the High Court.

p. 706, margin F

The Civil Appeal is accordingly, disposed of. RP. Appeal disposed of.

p. 706, margin G