This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal under the Employees of Private Schools Act by the School Tribunal. The Court found no cause of action and dismissed the writ petition.
No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
17-wp-1645-2020.doc
SA Pathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1645 OF 2020
Digitally signed bySHABNOOR SHABNOORAYUB AYUBPATHAN PATHAN Date:2024.01.05 17:12:08 +0530
Shankar Sukhdev Kalel… Petitioner
V/s.
Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Khanapur,
Sangli & Ors… Respondents
Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade, for Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Patwardhan i/by Ms. Mrinal A. Shelar, for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP, for State/Respondent No.3.
CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED:JANUARY 5, 2024
P.C.:
1.The petitioner is a teacher who filed an appeal under Section
9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981. According to the
petitioner, he was appointed permanent employee of the
respondent/Management against the permanent vacancy on 14
June 2010. He completed his probation on 13 June 2013.
Thereafter, the respondent did not allow him to join the work.
Therefore, he filed Appeal No.57 of 2013.
2.The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of cause
of action holding that the respondent/Management did not
1
17-wp-1645-2020.doc
terminate the service of petitioner. But, thereafter, on 22 January
2016 the Education Officer cancelled petitioner’s approval. The
petitioner challenged the order by filing writ petition before this
Court, this Court directed the Education Officer to pass reasoned
order. However, according to the petitioner, based on such refusal
to approval service, the Management again did not allow him to
join the work and sign the muster. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
Appeal No.22 of 2018.
3.The respondent stated before the School Tribunal that the
petitioner’s service was not terminated and he can join his duty.
The School Tribunal recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to
prove that the Management restrained him from signing the
muster and to work in school.
4.The School Tribunal further recorded a finding that the
petitioner has resumed his duty from 27 June 2017. Therefore,
there is no question of granting relief based on finding that the
petitioner’s service was never terminated by the Management. The
School Tribunal refused to grant any other relief.
5.Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for the respondents/
Management states that except deducting three months unpaid
leave rest of the salaries has been paid to the petitioner for period
from 3 October 2016 till 26 June 2017. Therefore, no interference
under writ jurisdiction is called for.
6. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a cause of action for interference in the dismissal of the School Tribunal's decision dismissing the appeal for want of cause of action.
Whether the refusal to grant approval for service and subsequent non-allowance to join work resurrected the cause of action for the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shankar Sukhdev Kalel
Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Khanapur, Sangli & Ors
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court