1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 655 OF 2009 Tanaji Mahalu Sontakke .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary, Shri Shanteshwar Shikshan Samiti, Sastur, Tq. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad and others .. .. Respondents Shri P. S. Dighe, Advocate h/f Shri R. L. Kute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. K. Temkar, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri S. V. Kurundkar, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 784 OF 2009 Govind Ramesh Koli .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary, Shri Shanteshwar Shikshan Samiti, Sastur, Tq. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad and others .. .. Respondents Shri P. S. Dighe, Advocate h/f Shri R. L. Kute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. K. Temkar, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. 2 Shri S. V. Kurundkar, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 4 and 5 served. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 785 OF 2009 Prashant Maruti Sathe .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary, Shri Shanteshwar Shikshan Samiti, Sastur, Tq. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad and others .. .. Respondents Shri P. S. Dighe, Advocate h/f Shri R. L. Kute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. K. Temkar, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri S. V. Kurundkar, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 4 and 5 served. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 02ND FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER [ PER A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. The petitioners by these petitions question the legality and validity of judgment and order passed by Grievance Committee, 3 constituted for entertaining complaint of Shikshan Sevaks, which dismissed the appeals filed by the present petitioners. 02. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 12th June, 2004, for a period of three years on probation. However, the petitioners were orally terminated from service on 07th October, 2005. Aggrieved by the alleged oral termination, the petitioners filed appeals before the Grievance Committee. The petitioners contended that they had applied in response to an advertisement for filling in the concerned post and after successfully competing in the selection process, the petitioners came to be appointed. The appointing authority for the post of Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak is the school committee having regard to the provisions of Rule 9 Sub Rule 2 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules. 03. It is not in dispute that the memo of appeal filed by the present petitioners is silent as to who had interviewed the petitioners and/or who conducted process of selection. In the appeals filed by the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 and 2 herein took a definite stand that the School Committee had not resolved to appoint the present petitioners and thus denied the very appointment of the petitioners. It was contended that the 4 appointments were without adhering to the due procedure established by law. It is also contended by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that one of the the petitioners being a near relation of the then Head Master, the present petitioners in collusion with the Head Master who happens to be brother-in-law, cooked up documents with a view to enable sending of proposals to the Education Officer seeking approval to the appointments. The Education Officer as well filed the reply before the Tribunal stating therein that so far as one of the petitioners is concerned, on number of occasions in the past proposals of appointments were submitted by the Head Master, however no approval was granted. The Education Officer has categorically stated in the reply that copy of the resolution passed by the School Committee was not sent by the Head Master to the Education Officer. What is relevant to notice is that before the Tribunal the resolution allegedly passed by the School Committee resolving to appoint the present petitioners was not placed on record. It is settled position in law that juristic person act through a validly passed resolution. In the absence of any such resolution been available on record, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the appointments of the petitioners are not in accordance with law. 04. The Education Officer has stated in his reply that there are disputes in the management and members of the School 5 Committee. It is also stated by the Education Officer that no record of the interview and selection process is available in as much as the names of the candidates who had applied for the post, the names of the candidates who had attended the interviews, the criteria adopted by the School Committee for the purpose of evaluating the merit of the candidates, the marks secured by each of the candidate, etc. is not available. In the absence of the material particulars in regard to the selection process the Tribunal held that the petitioners have failed to establish that they are validly appointed. We do not find any illegality being committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the appeals. 05. One more objection is raised on behalf of respondent No. 4 to the extent the petitioner's claiming relief in the nature of quashing of the appointment of the respondent No. 4 and the said objection is to the effect that the respondent No. 4 was not party before the Tribunal. However, present petitioner impleaded him as party respondent in this petition without even seeking leave of the Court. The grievance made by the respondent No. 4 is well merited and hence the petition touching the said prayer has to be rejected. 06. We have perused the appointment orders, the joining report submitted by the petitioner and the report of the Head Master which are on pages 40, 41 and 42 of the Writ Petition No. 655/2009 6 respectively, which reveals interpolations in the dates in regard to the date of selection and the date of appointment. The documents from page 40 to 42 leave no room of doubt that the then Head Master has tried to support the case of the petitioners, by issuing appointment orders. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence writ petitions are dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 2010