Remanded

Shivdas Maruti Mundhe v. Secretary Ganajan Vidya Pra.Mandal and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2014WP/1887/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in W.P. No. 1887/2001, after receiving new evidence showing prior appointment approval and lack of reply from the respondent, quashed the School Tribunal's termination appeal order and remanded the matter with a direction to complete pleadings and decide within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated February 22, 2000 of the School Tribunal is quashed; Appeal No.136/1998 is remanded to decide after completion of pleadings within six months.

Shivdas Maruti Mundhe Vs Secretary Ganajan Vidya… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P.No.1887/2001

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1887 OF 2001 WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION ST.NO.16569 OF 2014

¶6

Shivdas Maruti Mundhe, Age about 37 years, Occu. Service, At Post Kaij, Taluka Kaij, Phulenagar, District Beed ..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Secretary, Gajanan Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Tambva, Taluka Kaij, District Beed

¶9

The Head Master, Ganesh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, At Post Tambva, Taluka Kaij, District Beed

¶10

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

Mr S.P.Shah, Advocate h/f Mr Girish Rane, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.B.Talekar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr D.V.Tele, A.G.P. For respondent No.3 Respondent No.2 served

¶13

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶14

DATE : 3rd July 2014

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner claiming to be an employee of the respondent

¶17

Trust, preferred an appeal bearing Appeal No.136/1998 before

¶18

W.P.No.1887/2001

¶19

¶20

the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad against the order of termination. According to petitioner, he was terminated by the respondent – Management on 3^rd July 1998, when he was engaged in classes in the respondent – school.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is, before the Tribunal he claimed that based upon the first appointment order dated June 5, 1991, he was continued in the service till 1998. That in the intervening period, having regard to his qualification, the Management also permitted to him to appear for B.Ed. Course and he completed the said course. However, without assigning any reason his services were terminated.

¶22

While supporting the termination order, the learned Counsel for the respondent – Management invited attention of this Court to the various documents, i.e. the application dated May 25, 1996 seeking appointment by the petitioner and the appointment order dated June 20, 1996 appointing the petitioner on purely temporary basis for an academic year. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the case of the petitioner that he was in employment since June 5, 1991 is hard to be believed and denied the appointment in toto. He submits that before the Tribunal, the case was rightly canvassed by the respondent – Management. The respondent – Management has not filed affidavit in the appeal before the Tribunal.

¶23

W.P.No.1887/2001

¶24

¶25

The perusal of order impugned reflects that the Tribunal went on considering the contentions of the respective parties and has accepted the submissions of the respondent herein that the petitioner was not in employment/appointment since 1991. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was against a reserved post.

¶26

During course of hearing of this petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, through an affidavit, invited attention of this Court to the communication dated January 20, 2014, May 2, 2014 so as to demonstrate that the Education Officer has granted approval to the appointment of the present petitioner for the period from 1991 to 1995. The learned Counsel for the respondent strongly objected to the consideration of evidence on the ground that same was not part and parcel of the evidence, which was produced and appreciated by the Tribunal.

¶27

The School Tribunal in its order impugned has accepted all the submissions of respondent – Management though no pleadings were filed by respondent.

¶28

After hearing the present petition for some time, having regard to above referred subsequent developments which are brought to the notice of this Court by petitioner and the fact that

¶29

W.P.No.1887/2001

¶30

¶31

the respondent – Management has not filed reply to the appeal, the parties in the present petition, consented for remand of the matter to the Tribunal.

¶32

Having regard to the fact when the appeal was dealt with the fact that the approval granted to the appointment orders of the present petitioner from 1991 to 1995 by the Education Officer, was not available for consideration before the Tribunal and the fact that the respondent – Management has not filed its reply to the appeal and in addition to the fact that the parties have consented to the remand, the order dated February 22, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad in appeal No.136/1998 is quashed and set aside. The Appeal No.136/1998, is remanded to the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad to decide the same in the light of above observations.

¶33

The present petitioner – appellant before the Tribunal and the respondents herein are entitled to complete pleadings before the School Tribunal having regard to the subsequent development and the fact that the reply to the appeal is required to be filed.

¶34

It is expected of the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, after giving opportunity to the respective parties including that of completion of pleadings, to decide the appeal in question within a period of six months from today.

¶35

W.P.No.1887/2001

¶36

¶37

The parties to the present petition undertakes to appear before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad on 28^th July 2014.

¶38

Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

¶39

In view of disposal of writ petition, Civil Application St.No.16569 of 2014 does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶40

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶41

(vvr/1887.2001wp)

Shivdas Maruti Mundhe v. Secretary Ganajan Vidya Pra.Mandal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivdas Maruti Mundhe v. Secretary Ganajan Vidya Pra.Mandal and Ors.

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

Vitthal Mohan Patil, Died Thr. L.Rs. Bhagwan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmedpur Vs Bapurao Raghunath Kendre

Mahalaxmi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs Santosh Dnyaneshwar Pawar and Others

Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Ankushnagar Vs Samarth Seva Bhavi Trust Ankushnagar and Others.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Shardabai Shivappa Atnure and Anr.