Partly allowed

Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Udgir and Anr. v. Nageshkumar Sadhurao Salunke and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2011WP/362/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the School Tribunal's order regarding the petitioner's strike-off from the record was untenable due to interim stay. The Court quashed the order, permitted the petitioner to defend itself, and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits by June 30, 2011.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of School Tribunal dated 2.12.2008 quashed; Petitioner permitted to defend; Parties directed to appear by 28.3.2011 for final decision by 30.6.2011.

Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Udgir and Anr. Vs… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) WP 362.2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.362 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9411 OF 2010 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 362 OF 2009

¶5

Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Udgir and anr. PETITIONERS-

¶6

 (APPLICANTS)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Nageshkumar S/o Sadhurao Salunke
and anr.

¶9

 RESPONDENTS

¶10

.....

¶11

Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner-applicant.
Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for the Respondent no.1.

¶12

.....

¶13

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 4^TH MARCH, 2011

¶14

ORAL ORDER:-

¶15

1.Civil Application no. 9411 of 2010 filed by

¶16

respondent no.1-employee for vacation of interim
orders or in the alternative for final hearing was
considered on last occasion and thereafter matter was
adjourned to today.

¶17

respondent no.1 has urged that interim order given by

¶18

School Tribunal continues to operate even today. It

¶19

is apparent that defence of petitioner-management has

¶20

been struck off and that order has been questioned in

¶21

(2) WP 362.2009

¶22

Writ Petition. Because of interim stay granted by
this Court, the School Tribunal is not in a position
to proceed further with the adjudication of the
matter. She therefore states that interim stay given
by this Court should either be vacated or then other

¶23

appropriate orders be passed. According to her
respondent-employee can be compensated by paying him
salary also for the period for which he was not
permitted to join.

¶24

3. Shri Gunale appearing for the original
petitioner has invited attention to the fact that
appeal was filed before the School Tribunal sometime
in 2006 alongwith prayer for condonation of delay and

¶25

those proceedings were registered as Misc.
Application no. 22 of 2006. In those proceeding,
interim reinstatement was sought and on day of
filing, the School Tribunal passed exparte order and
granted that relief. He points out that the interim
relief was to operate till appearance of management

¶26

or till filing of say by management. Management
filed its say and appearance on 22.3.2006 and interim

¶27

relief was not continued thereafter. According to
him, in this situation the order of striking off

¶28

(3) WP 362.2009

¶29

defenceofpetitioner-managementiswithout
jurisdiction. He further contends that alleged
violation of interim orders was complained after more
than two years. He has invited my attention to
representation forwarded by respondent no.1 to
Director of Education to show that when stay was
operating i.e. during 15.2.2006 till 22.3.2006,
respondent no.1 even did not report for duties and
hence there was no occasion for management either to
comply with the order or to defy it.

¶30

4.He also points out that later on School
Tribunal has condoned delay in filing the appeal and
the appeal now is to be decided on merits.

¶31

5.Perusal of representation dated 12.4.2006
annexed as Exhibit R-5 alongwith reply affidavit of
respondent no.1 shows that respondent no.1 for the
first time reported to school on 10.4.2006. Earlier
on 3.3.2006 he forwarded stay order dated 15.2.2006
by post and he further claims that he has thereafter
forwarded that order time and again. In other words,
said management appeared before the School Tribunal
and filed their say the respondent no.1 had not
reported for duties.

¶32

(4) WP 362.2009

¶33

6.As the petitioner management has not
questioned the order of School Tribunal condoning
delay, in present situation I find that interest of
justice can be met with by directing School Tribunal
to decide the appeal filed by respondent no.1 itself
finally and as early as possible. The order striking
off defence of present petitioner cannot be sustained
and same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶34

7.Hence, with consent of parties, the impugned
order dated 2.12.2008 passed by Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Latur below exhibit 34 in appeal no.
65 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner-
management is permitted to defend itself before the
School Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear
before the Tribunal on 28.3.2011 and School Tribunal
shall after hearing them attempt to decide the appeal
as early as possible and by 30th June, 2011. Rule is
made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
In view of this, Civil Application no. 9411 of 2010
is partly allowed and disposed of.

¶35

 [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶36

arp

Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Udgir and Anr. v. Nageshkumar Sadhurao Salunke and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Udgir and Anr. v. Nageshkumar Sadhurao Salunke and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kashinath Deshnmukh Vs Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Jalgaon

Rajesh Parmeshwar Rawate Vs Manisha Satish Patil and Ors.

Harun @ Raju Nabi Pinjari Vs Subhash Lotan Mansure and Ors.

Gopichand Bhika Choudhari and Ors. Vs Tukaram Bhika Choudhari

Sudhakar Tulshirma Kamble Vs the Commissioner Municipal Corporation Aurangabad and Anr.

Bhagawandas S/O Aildas Kalda(Died) Lrs Kishanlal Kalda and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.