1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1811 of 2010 ( Shri Danish Adikhan Shoebullakhan and others ..vs.. Education Officer (Secondary) Z.P. Yavatmal and others ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED :- 4 th MAY, 2010 Heard Shri A.S. Jaiswal, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri J.B. Jaiswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Dr. Anjan De, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have already filed appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the Tribunal against the order of termination. However, whether the issue pertaining to grant or refusal/cancellation of approval can be considered by the Tribunal. Dr. Anjan De, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, has cited decision of Full Bench reported in 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 597, St. Ulai High School and another .vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh and another, and invited our attention to the observations made by the Full Bench in para 10.10, which reads thus:- “10.10. Where the management has proceeded to terminate the services of an employee on the 2 ground of non-approval by the Education Department, the employee aggrieved by the act of termination is entitled to file an appeal before the Tribunal under section 9. In such an appeal, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide incidental and ancillary questions. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal would extend to deciding incidental and ancillary questions in order to render complete and effective justice. Hence, in adjudicating upon the validity of an order of termination, the Tribunal can enquire into the legitimacy of the foundation upon which the order of termination is based. In appeals under section 9, the Education Officer is impleaded as a matter of practice and his presence before the Tribunal is necessary in order to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate fully and finally on the dispute. However, it must be borne in mind that under the provisions of section 11(3) it is lawful for the Tribunal to recommend to the State Government that any dues directed by it to be paid to the employee or in the case of an order of reinstatement, the emoluments liable to be paid may be deducted from the grant due and payable or which becomes due and payable in future to the management and be paid to the employee directly. Under sub-section (4) of section 11, a direction issued by the Tribunal under sub-section (2) shall be complied with by the management within the specified period, not less than 30 days of the date of receipt by the management.” In view of the observations made by the Full Bench, we dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise the grievance about approval before the Tribunal, which is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. JUDGE JUDGE adgokar