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

LOKSHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR. versus RAJENDRA KUMAR AJABRAO MAHALLE AND ORS.

Decided
5 May 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 89 · 1997 INSC 479

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.

Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.

p. 89, margin F

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 Petition No. 3520/95.

p. 89, margin G

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

p. 89, margin G

"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 services shall stand ter-

p. 90, margin A

minated without any notice."

p. 90, margin A

Subsequently, no 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 :

p. 90, margin A

"That due to refusal of sanction and provisions 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

p. 90, margin B

Officer (Secondary) and Education Inspectors, Bombay."

p. 90, margin C

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 directions. The Tribunal held that he had been appointed against a permanent vacancy and the Head Master had 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.

p. 90, margin C

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. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 90, margin E