Though called out twice, petitioner, party-in-person is not present.
I have heard Shri Joshi learned advocate for school management.
From the record, it transpires that the petitioner who was working as a second Head Master with the respondent-School had approached this Court mainly with the prayer that the management be restrained from obstructing the petitioner from working as a first Head Master of the respondent-School. In the petition, in para-13, there is reference to Letters Patent Appeal No.1093 of 1998 and Civil Application No.8205 of 1998, by saying that the orders passed in those matters by the Division Bench were on misrepresentation of the school management. Copy of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 10th September, 1999 is on record and from the said order, it transpires that, after hearing respondent therein, the present petitioner, the interim order which was the subject matter of the said appeal dated 23rd April, 1998 was stayed. Thus, it appears that basis of the present petition is the orders passed in earlier petition which was the subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal as referred above. The said Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of by the order dated 10th October, 2011 which is placed on record by Mr.Joshi today. It transpires that the present petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st May, 2003 and as submitted by Mr.Joshi, his claim of retirement dues is also settled long back. Mr.Joshi has submitted that the petitioner has not appeared thereafter, in any of the matters, though are regularly listed before this Court.
On merits also, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner was with regard to his functioning as first Head Master and not as second Head Master, while he was in service. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already retired before years, on superannuation, nothing more remains to be done so far the present petition is concerned.
Under the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of as having become infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to move this Court for revival of the petition, if so required.
Petition disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) (ashish) Top