Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals in Land Dispute and Teacher Recruitment Cases — Upholds Single Judge's Orders on Limitation and Selection Process. In LPA No.177/2012, appeal dismissed as barred by limitation; in LPA No.288/2011, selection of respondent upheld as per rules.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 61
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment comprises two Letters Patent Appeals. LPA No.177/2012 arises from a land dispute where the appellants challenged an order of a Single Judge dismissing their writ petition. The appeal was filed beyond the limitation period, and the appellants sought condonation of delay. The court found the explanation for the delay insufficient and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. LPA No.288/2011 involves a challenge to the selection of a primary teacher by the District Selection Committee, Buldana. The appellant, Rajesh Joshi, contended that the selection was not in accordance with the rules. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition, and the Division Bench upheld that decision, finding no merit in the appeal. The court held that the selection process was properly conducted and no interference was warranted.

Headnote

A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Letters Patent Appeal - The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the explanation offered for the delay was not found to be sufficient - Held that the delay cannot be condoned and the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation (Paras 1-5).

B) Service Law - Teacher Recruitment - Selection Process - The selection of the respondent by the District Selection Committee was found to be in accordance with the relevant rules and the Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition - Held that no interference is called for in the Letters Patent Appeal (Paras 6-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Letters Patent Appeal No.177/2012 is barred by limitation and whether the delay in filing can be condoned; and whether the selection of respondent No.1 in LPA No.288/2011 was in accordance with the rules.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

LPA No.177/2012 dismissed as barred by limitation; LPA No.288/2011 dismissed with no interference in the selection.

Law Points

  • Limitation for filing Letters Patent Appeal
  • Condonation of delay
  • Sufficient cause
  • Selection process for primary teachers
  • District Selection Committee
  • Zilla Parishad
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (11) 112

Letters Patent Appeal No.177 of 2012 in Writ Petition No.1424 of 2012; Letters Patent Appeal No.288 of 2011 in Writ Petition No.3399 of 2010 [D]

2019-11-21

R.K. Deshpande, A.S. Chandurkar, Milind N. Jadhav

Shri Subodh Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Chinmay Dharmadhikari for Appellants (in LPA 177/2012); Smt. R.D. Raskar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (in LPA 177/2012); Shri Jugalkishor Gilda, Senior Advocate assisting the Court; Shri R.L. Khapre for Appellant (in LPA 288/2011); Shri P.B. Patil for Respondent No.1 (in LPA 288/2011); Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (in LPA 288/2011)

Motilal s/o Khamdeo Rokde, Chandu s/o Khamdeo Rokde, Mahadeo s/o Khamdeo Rokde (in LPA 177/2012); Rajesh s/o Ramesh Joshi (in LPA 288/2011)

Balkrushna Baliram Lokhande (since deceased through LRs) and others (in LPA 177/2012); Sadandan Uttam Hivarale, District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad, Buldana (in LPA 288/2011)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Two Letters Patent Appeals: one against dismissal of writ petition in a land dispute (LPA 177/2012) and another against dismissal of writ petition challenging teacher selection (LPA 288/2011).

Remedy Sought

In LPA 177/2012, appellants sought to set aside the order of Single Judge dismissing their writ petition; in LPA 288/2011, appellant sought to challenge the selection of respondent No.1 as primary teacher.

Filing Reason

LPA 177/2012 filed against dismissal of writ petition; LPA 288/2011 filed against dismissal of writ petition challenging selection.

Previous Decisions

Single Judge dismissed Writ Petition No.1424 of 2012 on 9-4-2012; Single Judge dismissed Writ Petition No.3399 of 2010 [D].

Issues

Whether LPA 177/2012 is barred by limitation and whether delay can be condoned Whether the selection of respondent No.1 in LPA 288/2011 was in accordance with rules

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants in LPA 177/2012 argued for condonation of delay; respondents opposed. In LPA 288/2011, appellant argued selection was not as per rules; respondents supported selection.

Ratio Decidendi

Delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned without sufficient cause; selection process conducted by District Selection Committee was in accordance with rules and does not warrant interference.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. The selection of the respondent is in accordance with the rules.

Procedural History

Writ Petition No.1424 of 2012 dismissed by Single Judge on 9-4-2012; LPA 177/2012 filed against that order. Writ Petition No.3399 of 2010 [D] dismissed by Single Judge; LPA 288/2011 filed against that order.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals in Land Dispute and Teacher Recruitment Cases — Upholds Single Judge's Orders on Limitation and Selection Process. In LPA No.177/2012, appeal dismissed as barred by limitation; in LPA No.288/2011, selection of re...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Wife's Maintenance Revision Under Section 125 CrPC — Marriage Presumed Valid Despite Husband's Denial. Long Cohabitation for 25 Years Raises Presumption of Marriage, Husband's Bare Denial Without Evidence Insufficient to Re...