MAHESHA NAND VIDYALAYA Vs. BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI AND ORS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-99
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 07,2013

Mahesha Nand Vidyalaya Appellant
VERSUS
BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-9- 2003 and decree dated 30-9-2003, passed by Additional District Judge/ F.T.C. 5th, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 73/2001, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25-5-2001 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) /FTC 6th Dehradun, in Suit No. 291/1988 Mahesha Nand Vidyalaya versus Basic Siksha Adhikari (Mahila) Dehradun and another, has been set aside.
(2.) This court at the time of admission of appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who is a statutory authority, can review his order of approval in the absence of any enabling provision in the Statute. (b) Whether the learned 1st Appellate Court is justified in holding that State was a necessary party to the suit by ignoring the fact that Basic Shiksha Parishad is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal which may by its name sue and be sued and further that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is also a statutory authority completely outside the control of State Government while exercising his statutory duties. (c) Whether the learned 1st Appellate Court is justified in giving a declaration in favour of defendant to the suit that she may be treated to be in continuous service and shall be entitled to arrears of salary for the entire period without giving any reasoning in support of the said declaration. (d) Whether the learned 1st Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of learned trial court without considering its findings and without adverting to the reasoning given in support of said findings by the learned trial court. (e) Whether the learned 1st Appellate Court is justified in applying the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding withdrawal of application for premature retirement to the case in hand where there is no such question involved.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the file.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.