AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 175 wordsIssue notice to Respondent No.2 only, being one of the main contesting respondents. It is not necessary to issue notice to the other respondents.
Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, learned counsel, appears and accepts notice for Respondent No.2 on behalf of Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate-on-
Record.
Leave granted.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Respondent No.2.
Having regard to the fact that the appellant has been continuing in the post of Head Mistress for more than 22 years and since the writ petition is
still pending, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in vacating the interim order.
Therefore, we set aside the impugned order. The appellant shall continue as Head Mistress till the writ petition is disposed of. However, we
request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously, preferably before the end of this year.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no orders as to costs.