Quashed

Saraswati Sadan Teachers Education Society Thr. Its Secty. and Anr. v. the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2013WP/1032/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the School Tribunal's judgment of 14.2.2012. The Court held that the Tribunal failed to give the petitioners a fair opportunity to file a written statement and erroneously relied on documents from deleted parties, rendering the order unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 14.2.2012 is quashed and set aside; matter remanded to School Tribunal for fresh decision after giving petitioners an opportunity to file a written statement.

Saraswati Sadan Teachers Education Society Thr. Its… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

0404wp1032.12.odt

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1032/2012

¶5

Saraswati Sadan Teachers Education Society, A Public Trust, Nagpur, through its Secretary and another ...Versus...

¶6

The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, Tah. & District Nagpur and others

¶7

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

¶11

Shri A.M. Ghare, Counsel for petitioners Shri P.P. Kotwal, Counsel for R - 2 Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for R – 4 Shri N.P. Lalwani, Counsel for R - 5

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 04.04.2013

¶13

By this petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School tribunal, Nagpur on 14.2.2012, allowing an appeal filed by the respondent no.2 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent no.2 in service with continuity of service and back wages.

¶14

The services of the respondent no.2 came to be terminated by the petitioners on 21.9.1995. The respondent no.2 challenged the order of termination before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 filed a writ petition bearing Writ

¶15

0404wp1032.12.odt

¶16

¶17

Petition No.1231/2001 against the judgment of the Tribunal. By a judgment dated 10.6.2010, this Court partly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent no.2 and remanded the matter to the School Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the appeal on merits as it appeared to this Court that while deciding the appeal, the Tribunal had considered the reply of the Education Officer (Secondary) in some other matter.

¶18

After the matter was remanded, the petitioners appeared before the School Tribunal on 11.8.2011. Time and again, the matter was posted before the Tribunal for filing of the replies on certain applications, which were pending before the Tribunal. The matter was also adjourned from time to time for acknowledgment of service on respondent no.7, who was joined as a party after remand, on the application filed by the respondent no.2. The appeal was fixed for hearing on the preliminary issue in regard to the validity of the appointment of the respondent no.2. The decision on the preliminary issue was deferred and the Tribunal fixed the matter for arguments on 31.01.2012 for deciding of the appeal on merits.

¶19

It is necessary to state at this juncture that initially the respondent no.2 had joined one Shri Ram Yadav, who was the President of the petitioner no.1- Society at the relevant time and one Mrs. Sontakke, who was the Secretary of the Education Society. However, since Shri Ram Yadav and Mrs. Sontakke, who were joined as parties in person were no more the President and Secretary of the Trust, an application was filed by the respondent no.2 for deletion of their names from the memorandum of appeal. The permission was granted by the Tribunal for deleting the

¶20

0404wp1032.12.odt

¶21

¶22

names of the respondent nos.1 and 2 – Shri Ram Yadav and Mrs. Sontakke. Though the respondent no.2 sued the President and the Secretary as the respondent nos.1 and 2, no notice was issued to the respondent nos.1 and 2, the President and the Secretary of the Society after the deletion of the names of Shri Ram Yadav and Mrs. Sontakke on 12.1.2012. The matter proceeded without the written statement of the petitioners, who appeared before the Tribunal for the first time on 11.8.2011. In fact, the petitioners had stated in the reply to one of the applications filed by the respondent no.2 that they were reserving their right to file the written statement and the reply pertained only to the application filed by the respondent no.2. Without the written statement of the petitioners, the matter was decided by the Tribunal by making a reference to the reply filed by Shri Ram Yadav and Mrs. Sontakke, the then President and Secretary of the Society in the impugned judgment.

¶23

I had called for the original record and proceedings. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the Tribunal has not granted a fair opportunity to the petitioners to defend the appeal filed by the respondent no.2. Previously, the petitioners were not parties to the appeal. After the matter was remanded by this Court, the petitioners appeared for the first time before the Tribunal on 11.8.2011. Shri Ram Yadav and Mrs. Sontakke, the then President and Secretary of the Society had supported the case of the respondent no.2 in the appeal. The petitioners wanted to defend the matter and hence, they had clearly stated in the reply to one of the applications filed by the respondent no.2 that

¶24

0404wp1032.12.odt

¶25

¶26

they were reserving their right to file the written statement. The Tribunal decided the preliminary issue on 25.1.2012 without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to file the written statement. It appears from the record, specially the Roznama that the matter was never fixed before the Tribunal for filing of the written statement of the petitioners. The appeal was decided by the Tribunal on 14.2.2012 without the written statement of the petitioners. The Tribunal not only did not grant an opportunity to the petitioners to file the written statement but also referred to the written statement of Shri Ram Yadav and Mrs. Sontakke though these parties were deleted from the record. A reference is made to the written statement filed by Shri Ram Yadav and Mrs. Sontakke in the impugned judgment and it is observed that Shri Ram Yadav and Mrs. Sontakke, the respondent nos.1 and 2 to the appeal had admitted the claim of the teacher. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the School Tribunal has not decided the matter after granting an opportunity to the petitioners to file the written statement and has erroneously deferred the decision on the preliminary issue, though it was necessary for the Tribunal to frame the preliminary issue and decide the same before deciding the appeal on merits. The Tribunal has also erroneously referred to the written statement filed by Shri Ram Yadav and Mrs. Sontakke, though their names were deleted from the record. The impugned judgment is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

¶27

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 14.2.2012 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the School Tribunal for

¶28

0404wp1032.12.odt

¶29

¶30

deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after granting an opportunity to the petitioners to file the written statement and an opportunity to the respondent no.5 to this petition to file additional submissions, if any.

¶31

The parties undertake to appear before the School Tribunal on 29.04.2013.

¶32

The record and proceedings may be remitted to the School Tribunal at the earliest.

¶33

In the facts of the case, there would be no order as to

¶34

costs.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

ssw

Saraswati Sadan Teachers Education Society Thr. Its Secty. and Anr. v. the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Sadan Teachers Education Society Thr. Its Secty. and Anr. v. the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ramesh Pralhad Tikar Vs Additional Collector Buldana and Ors.

Social Welfare Officer, Zp, Buldana Vs the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, and Ors.

Smt. Pushpa Bhanudas Ankatwar and Ors. Vs Smt. Chandrabai Wd/O Nanaji Tatewar and Ors.

City of Nagpur Corpn. Thr. Mpl.Commr. Vs Abdul Ahbib Abdul Aziz Faruqui and Anr.

Sau. Sharda Santosh Khodke Vs Smt. Shashikala Gopalrao Patil

Dadarao Motiram Bhanawat Vs Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thru. Its. President and 5 Ors.