Gujarat High Court
SCA/2981/1985 of RAMKUVERSING BALDEVSING Vs PRINCIPAL on 20 December 1995
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2981 OF 1985 Date of decision:21-12-1995 For Approval and Signature The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. KESHOTE 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
��Date of decision:21-12-1995
For Approval and Signature
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. KESHOTE
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may beallowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see thefair copy of the judgment?
4. Whether this case involves a substantialquestion of law as to the interpretationof the Constitution of India,1950 or anyorder made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to theCivil Judge?
��� Coram: S.K. KESHOTE,J.
����21-12-1995)
ORAL JUDGMENT:
The order of the learned Tribunal dated 23rd November, 1983does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever whichwarrants interference of this court sitting under Article227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Much insistence has been placed by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner on the fact that the letter ofresignation of the petitioner from service dated 4-5-1978was obtained by the management of the school by adoptingcoercive methods.This aspect has not been considered by theTribunal. I do not find any substance in this contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner hasresigned from service on 14-5-1978 and he joined some othercollege as Principal on 15-6-1979. In case what thepetitioner's counsel contended is correct, then thepetitioner should have lodged a protest against theaforesaid action of the management immediately after14-5-1978. This protest should have been in the form ofsome representation or some complaint to the Government.The petitioner has not lodged any protest whatsoever againstthis order till he got himself employed elsewhere. Thecomplaint of the nature which has been made by thepetitioner after joining elsewhere apparently seems to bemanufactured for seeking some benefits for himself. Suchconduct of the petitioner is relevant and sufficient fordeclining any relief to him under the extra ordinaryjurisdiction.
3. In the result the petition fails and the same isdismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
���........
Page 1 of 1
Loading citations and judicial treatment…