Sonwane Rohini and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

[markandey katju ; gyan sudha misra, jj.] - code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) 1908 - section 151 - saving of inherent powers of court -- this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned single judge of the patna high court in civil revision no. 945 of 2002. while the aforesaid partition suit was pending, the defendants smt. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas executed a general power of attorney on 31.7.1992 in favour of umesh chandra and dr. sanjeev kumar mishra and the same was registered. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent. the high court has observed that defendants nos. 2 and 2a viz., pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas should have consulted the power of attorney dr. sanjeev kumar mishra before signing the compromise petition. the principal is not bound to consult his attorney before signing a compromise petition. the impugned judgment and order of the high court is set aside and the order dated 7.6.2002 of the learned subordinate judge-v, bhagalpur is restored......not to relieve the petitioners and continue their services at suman high school nos.5 and 6 as teachers;(c) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioners on 21.5.2009, 28.1.2010, 06.04.2010, 12.08.2010 which is pending for consideration of the authorities;(d) your lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to absorb as a regular teachers to the petitioners.(e) this hon'ble court may be pleased to pass such other and further order in the interest of justice that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."2. at the very outset, ms.priti pandya, learned advocate for the petitioners states that the interest of justice would be met if, respondent no.2 is directed to consider the representations made by the petitioners on 21-5-2009, 28-1-2010, 6-4-2010 and 12-8-2010, which are pending, in a time bound manner.3. upon the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the petitioners, the following order is passed:respondent no.2 is directed to consider and decide the representations dated 21-5-2009, 28-1-2010, 6-4-2010 and 12-8-2010 in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.4. it is clarified that while passing this order, the court has not entered into the merits of the case.5. the petition is disposed of, in the above terms.6. direct service of this order is permitted.