Junnu Rama Goud Vs. Commissioner of Proh. and Excise and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the..........was not engaged in the profession of tapping toddy, but was engaged in doing business in jewellery at bhainsa. after rejection of his representation, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the commissioner of prohibition and excise, hyderabad, on 18th of july, 2002. learned single judge also dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not fulfilled the required criteria for being admitted as a member of the society.2. appellant has no vested right to be admitted as a member of the society. he has only a right to be considered for being admitted as a member of the society. this question has been duly considered by the authorities taking into consideration the relevant factors and no interference is called for by us in this appeal. in case.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Devinder Gupta, C.J.

1. Fourth respondent herein, viz., Tappers' Co-operative Society, Bhainsa, Adilabad District, rejected appellant's application for membership in the society. Representation made by appellant to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar Division, was also rejected on the ground that 'tapper' means a person who is major and who is engaged in the profession of tapping and who can climb and draw toddy from the toddy trees and the appellant was not engaged in the profession of tapping toddy, but was engaged in doing business in jewellery at Bhainsa. After rejection of his representation, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, on 18th of July, 2002. Learned Single Judge also dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not fulfilled the required criteria for being admitted as a member of the society.

2. Appellant has no vested right to be admitted as a member of the society. He has only a right to be considered for being admitted as a member of the society. This question has been duly considered by the authorities taking into consideration the relevant factors and no interference is called for by us in this appeal. In case circumstances change in future, there is no embargo in the appellant's applying afresh for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

3. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.