M. Ismail Faruqui Vs. Central Institute of English & Foreign Languages & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition (C) Nos. 673-74/2000
In
SLP (C) Nos. 7852-7853 of 2000
In
SLP (C) Nos. 7852-7853 of 2000
Petitioner: M. Ismail Faruqui
Respondent: Central Institute of English & Foreign Languages & Ors.
Apeal: Review Petition (C) Nos. 673-74/2000
In
SLP (C) Nos. 7852-7853 of 2000
In
SLP (C) Nos. 7852-7853 of 2000
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 25, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 137, 136 – Review – Dispute regarding acceptance of resignation by Registrar or Director – Finding of fact by Court below that acceptance was by Director. Held that such finding cannot be interfered by High Court or under Article 136. Review dismissed.
Articles 137, 136 – Review – Dispute regarding acceptance of resignation by Registrar or Director – Finding of fact by Court below that acceptance was by Director. Held that such finding cannot be interfered by High Court or under Article 136. Review dismissed.
(Para 2, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The contention raised in the review petition that the petitioner has not been fully heard at the time of hearing of the special leave petition cannot be accepted.
2. The point raised that there is a conflict between the pre-lunch part of judgment and the post lunch part of the judgment of the District Court is not correct. Both pre-lunch and post-lunch parts have not admitted the fresh document sought to be filed by the Department. However, on the basis of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and the letter of the Registrar, dated 25.11.97, it was held that the acceptance of the resignation was not by the Registrar but by the Director, who was the competent authority.
3. There is also a delay of 3 years in the petitioner seeking to withdraw his resignation.
4. The finding of fact arrived at by the District Court that the Director had accepted the resignation cannot be interfered with in second appeal or under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
5. The review petitions are dismissed.
1. The contention raised in the review petition that the petitioner has not been fully heard at the time of hearing of the special leave petition cannot be accepted.
2. The point raised that there is a conflict between the pre-lunch part of judgment and the post lunch part of the judgment of the District Court is not correct. Both pre-lunch and post-lunch parts have not admitted the fresh document sought to be filed by the Department. However, on the basis of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and the letter of the Registrar, dated 25.11.97, it was held that the acceptance of the resignation was not by the Registrar but by the Director, who was the competent authority.
3. There is also a delay of 3 years in the petitioner seeking to withdraw his resignation.
4. The finding of fact arrived at by the District Court that the Director had accepted the resignation cannot be interfered with in second appeal or under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
5. The review petitions are dismissed.
