1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3925 OF 2009 ( Bhalchandra D. Kadam . -: versus :- Shivaji Education Society and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 26, 2009. Heard finally by consent of Shri R.L. Khapre, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2, and Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.3 and 4. Challenge is to judgment dated 23.07.2009 delivered by the School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur) in Appeal No. STN 274/1993. Learned counsel for petitioner states that vital documents like resolution of the Executive Committee of respondent no.1 Society, orders passed by the High Court after considering the resolution and order passed by the School Tribunal also were not placed before the School Tribunal by petitioner, as the Principal of the school in which he was working, filed a Pursis dated 06.01.2009, which indirectly stated that management had no objection to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner. He contends that ignoring 2 that pursis, the School Tribunal has applied mind independently and dismissed the same on erroneous grounds. Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 as also learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 4 support the impugned order. They contend that the School Tribunal has found that appointment of petitioner was not in accordance with the law and therefore, it was a back door recruitment. They argue that there was no advertisement, no selection process, and hence, the order of School Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous and this Court should not interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Shri Patil, argues that petitioner has not given any reason for not producing the documents annexed with the writ petition, before the School Tribunal. According to him, pursis dated 6.1.2009 is not the act of management and principal i.e. respondent no.2 could not have filed it before the school Tribunal. Perusal of the resolution dated 25.07.1998 clearly shows that in the matter of recruitment during the period in dispute, a resolution was passed by the Managing Committee. That resolution states that, if the employee appointed fulfills certain terms and conditions, they can be absorbed/continued in services. On the basis of the said resolution, this Court has in Writ Petition No. 2264/1994 on 31.07.1998, disposed of the petition by noticing that management had no objection to regularize the appointment of petitioner before it. Same orders are passed in Writ Petition No. 2612/1994 on the same date. Perusal of the judgment dated 21.05.2003 delivered by the School Tribunal, 3 Amravati in Appeal No. 333/1993-A, show a direction to reinstate employee i this background. Pursis filed by respondent no.2 before the School Tribunal in present matter shows that employee/ petitioner is continued in service and he was appointed by the Society in accordance with the law. It further states that he was removed because of instructions from the office of the Deputy Director [vocational], Nagpur. It further mentions that, that termination has been stayed and employee was continued in service. His appointment is duly sanctioned by the Deputy Director and he is also getting regular pay scale and other benefits. Thereafter, it has been mentioned that the society has no objection to dispose of the appeal in these circumstances. The School Tribunal has not considered the said pursis and has not found that it could not have acted on that pursis. It is obvious that, petitioner employee was misled because of that pursis and hence he did not file all the earlier orders mentioned above, otherwise, there was no reason for the employee to refrain from producing said documents when his service was at risk. In these circumstances, I find that the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2009 cannot be sustained. The same is therefore, quashed and set aside. Proceedings in Appeal STN 274/1993 are restored back to the file for fresh decision, in accordance with the law after hearing the parties. Liberty to petitioner to produce said documents on record before the School Tribunal. The respondent employer shall also be at liberty to file appropriate say in relation to the said document. The School Tribunal to decide the controversy in 4 accordance with law, thereafter. As the matter is old, the School Tribunal should attempt to decide the appeal as early as possible and in any case by 31.08.2010. As the petitioner is continued in service, his service shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the matter before the School Tribunal. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.