Disposed

Deepak Inder Ahuja v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2019NMW/5/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that since the petitioner's services were terminated, the writ petition regarding suspension does not survive independently. The Court clarified that the petitioner must approach the School Tribunal for termination disputes but can raise ancillary challenges to the illegal suspension and unfair treatment there, without this order determining those contentions. Both petition

What did the court decide?

Both the writ petition and notices of motion were disposed of without expressing any opinion on rival contentions.

Deepak Inder Ahuja Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

910-NMWG-5.2019.doc

¶2

suresh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.5 OF 2019

¶4

IN WRIT PETITION NO.3015 OF 2018 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.557 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3015 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3015 OF 2018

¶5

Deepak Inder Ahuja .... Applicant In the matter between Deepak Inder Ahuja .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others .... Respondents

¶6

Ms Panthi Desai i/by M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav i/by Mr. Neel G. Helekar for Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Mr. Jitendra P. Patil for Respondent No.6.

¶7

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶8

DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2019

¶9

P.C:

¶10

After the motions were heard and earlier orders have

¶11

been passed, it has now been fairly stated by the

Page 1 of 4

suresh

910-NMWG-5.2019.doc

petitioner/applicant’s Advocate that the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

¶16

It is fairly stated that the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 being applicable, the petitioner will have to impugn the termination order by filing an Appeal under Section 9 of the said Act before the Competent School Tribunal.

¶17

Therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition,

¶18

according to us.

¶19

However, Ms Desai argues that this petition was filed to challenge a suspension which, in the opinion of the petitioner, is wholly illegal. Such a suspension, therefore, does not enable the authority/Management to hold any inquiry. Bearing in mind the prayers in the writ petition, the subsequent events do not make it infructuous by any means.

¶20

We do not express any opinion on the contentions

¶21

suresh

¶22

910-NMWG-5.2019.doc

¶23

for we do not think that by our order we are putting an end to the controversy in any manner or foreclosing the remedies of the petitioner.

¶24

Once the petitioner has been terminated, then he has to approach the School Tribunal.

¶25

In the School Tribunal, when the petitioner impugns the termination, he can also bring to the notice of the School Tribunal the events preceding the termination, in the sense not only he can impugn the order and the inquiry proceedings by alleging that they are not fair, just and impartial but can also argue that he was put under suspension illegally and that while under suspension and facing inquiry, he was treated unfairly by not releasing his entire subsistence allowance. Further, the inquiry was not completed within the stipulated period and the extension granted allegedly to complete it is also illegal.

¶26

All such contentions can be raised before the School Tribunal while impugning the termination and all reliefs which may include some of the facets and aspects of the prayers in this

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

suresh 910-NMWG-5.2019.doc

¶29

petition can also be claimed. Eventually, it is the School Tribunal which will determine the issues in accordance with law. In the event the School Tribunal finds that the termination is illegal, it is not precluded from granting all the consequential and ancillary reliefs, including payment of backwages and amounts for such duration as were payable when the petitioner was placed under suspension. In the circumstances, we do not think that we should allow this writ petition to remain on the file.

¶30

In the light of the subsequent developments and in view of our clarification as above, both the petition and the notices of motion are disposed of. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions and all of them are kept open.

¶31

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Deepak Inder Ahuja v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Inder Ahuja v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 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

Dr.Lalitha Genesan Vs University of Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Dr. (Mrs.) Sanghamitra Khatua Vs the University of Mumbai and 2 Ors. and Dr. Lalitha Ganesan (Applicant) and Anr.

Maruti Kallapa Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Deepak Inder Ahuja Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Pushpa Baburao Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Mihir Girish Kamat Vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.