1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1670 OF 2008 The President, Samta Bahuddeshiya Mandal, Kalyan ..Petitioner. Vs. Sunil Hanumant Jagtap and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Girish Paryani for the Petitioner. Mr. J.M. Puranik for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.K. Chinchlikar, AGP for Respondents 4 to 6. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8026 OF 2008 Sunil Hanumant Jagtap ..Petitioner. Vs. The Headmaster, Samta Vidyalaya and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. J.M. Puranik for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish Paryani for Respondent No.2. Mr. S.K. Chinchlikar, AGP for Respondent No.4. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 11th December, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule, by consent of the Learned Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. 2 With the consent of the Learned Counsel and at their request, the Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order dated 13th December, 2007 passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Navi Mumbai. The Tribunal has set aside an order of termination dated 18th June, 2007 passed by the Petitioner and has directed the reinstatement of the First Respondent on the post of Assistant Teacher with continuity of service. No relief has been granted for the payment of backwages. 3. The case of the First Respondent before the School Tribunal was that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the secondary school conducted by the Petitioner on 13th June, 2003. The School Tribunal observed that there were two appointment orders on the record. According to the First Respondent his services came to be approved by the Education Officer on 7th February, 2006 with effect from 13th June, 2003. Before the School Tribunal the contention of the management was that the appointment orders were 3 fabricated and that the Headmaster was responsible for the preparation of these documents. The School Tribunal while allowing the appeal confined its reasons to one paragraph – paragraph 12 of the order – in which it was observed that the department had granted its approval to the appointment on 20th January, 2006 with effect from 13th June, 2003 and there was no reason to suppose that the approval was granted on a fabricated record. The second reason which weighed with the Tribunal was that though the Headmaster was still in service, no action was taken against him by the management. During the pendency of these proceedings, an order was passed on 14th March, 2008 directing the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane to remain present before the Court with the record regarding the approval granted to the First Respondent on 20th January, 2006. The Education Officer has filed an affidavit dated 2nd April, 2008. In the affidavit it has been stated that the Education Officer sanctioned the post of the First Respondent on the basis of the proposal sent by the Headmaster on 14th November, 2005 and 20th January, 2006. The appointment of the First Respondent was as against the additional division which was sanctioned for standards 8 4 and 9 on a permanent no grant basis. It has been stated that from the academic year 2007-08 due to a reduction in the strength of students, the management closed the division which was running on a permanent no grant basis. The affidavit further states that the Deputy Education Officer visited the school and verified the record when it was found that the First Respondent had signed the muster roll as an Assistant Teacher during the period from 15th February, 2005 to 22nd February, 2005; from June 2005 to 3rd May, 2006, 12th June, 2006 to 30th April, 2007 and on 15th, 19th and 20th June, 2007. 4. The facts which have now been disclosed in the reply which has been filed by the Education Officer would seem to indicate that the First Respondent had signed the muster roll only on and after 15th February, 2005. If that be so, a further enquiry would be necessary of the circumstances in which a letter of appointment came to be issued to the First Respondent on 13th June, 2003. That apart, as the School Tribunal noted there were two letters of appointment. The case of the management in paragraph 8 of the Petition is that the second of the alleged letters of appointment purports to be signed by the Petitioner 5 on 15th November, 2005 and it is stated that the signature of the Petitioner is forged. According to the Petitioner the alleged letter of appointment could in any event not have been signed by the Petitioner after two years on 15th November, 2005 which would show that it is a fabricated document. Reliance has also been placed on the seniority list of teachers for 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06. The seniority list does not indicate the name of the First Respondent for 2003-04, 2004-05 but refers to the First Respondent for the period 2005-06 as a temporary employee. 5. The material which was on the record of the School Tribunal and the material which has now been placed on the record in the affidavit of the Education Officer dated 2nd April, 2008 would warrant a close scrutiny by the School Tribunal. There is merit in the grievance of counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent that the First Respondent should have an adequate opportunity to deal with what has been stated by the Education Officer. The School Tribunal in a very brief reasoning has failed to consider the case in all its dimensions. As a fact finding authority, the School Tribunal ought 6 to have considered all the factual aspects of the case which has evidently not been done. A further enquiry is necessary in regard to the basis on which an approval was purported to be granted on 20th January, 2006 for the post of the First Respondent from 13th June, 2003. The defence of the Petitioner that the letters of appointment which have been placed on the record of the Tribunal are fabricated will also warrant a further enquiry. The circumstances which have been adverted to in the earlier part of this judgment are not intended to indicate a final expression of opinion one way or the other by this Court on the merits of the rival contentions, but have been set out in order to explain the contours of the case and the deficiency in the order of the School Tribunal in failing to consider the case from all its perspectives. Since the Court is inclined to remand the proceedings back to the School Tribunal, it is clarified that these observations shall not come in the way of the School Tribunal arriving at a final decision on merits after hearing the parties. 6. In order to facilitate a fresh decision by the School Tribunal, the impugned order dated 13th December, 2007 is set aside and 7 Appeal 46 of 2007 shall stand restored to the file of the School Tribunal at Navi Mumbai. Parties shall appear before the School Tribunal for receiving directions on 18th December, 2008 on which date a time schedule may be fixed by the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the appeal on remand. The School Tribunal shall endeavour an expeditious disposal of the appeal preferably by 30th April, 2009. Both the Writ Petitions shall accordingly stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. *****