2206wp4536.09.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NBO.4536 OF 2009. The Peoples Education Society through its President Dr.Rahim Bharati, r/o Muzaffarpura, Amravati. ...VERSUS... Raziya Sultana Abdul Salim, Aged about 47 years, Head Mistress, R/o Chhaya Nagar, Amravati and ors. ................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................ Mr. M.K.Pathan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for resp.1 to 4, 6 to 10,12 and14. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 22nd June, 2011. 1. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 27/11/2008 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, by which order the Appeals filed by the respondents herein came to be allowed and the respondents were directed to be continued in service. 2206wp4536.09.odt 2 2. The above petition is an unfortunate case of the eleven respondents i.e. teachers/non-teaching staff of the petitioner- Society being caught in the cross-fire between the two groups of Management. 3. The respondents no.1 to 11 herein would be referred to as the ‘said respondents’. The said respondents were appointed between the period 1991 to 1996 and at the relevant time had put in service between 8 and 11 years. It is an admitted position that the Education Officer had approved the appointment of the respondents but thereafter by an order passed on 30th April, 2004 the Education Officer had withdrawn the said approval purportedly on the ground that the said respondents were not properly appointed in terms of the rules and regulations. The said order came to be challenged by the then Management represented by the Secretary, who was sympathetic to the respondents herein by filing Writ Petition No.2070 of 2004. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 14/6/2006 by the Division Bench of this court on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel representing the new Management, which claimed to be then in 2206wp4536.09.odt 3 control of the petitioner – Society. The operative part of the said order reads as follows - “We find that it is quite fair submission on part of the management that they would examine the issue as suggested by this court. We, therefore, dispose off this petition with direction that the management should reexamine the case of 17 staff members who are the applicants in Civil Application No.1390 of 2006 with the assistance of nominee of the Dy.DE and the EO and if they are found to be eligible, regularise their appointments”. Pursuant to the said directions, the Management took a decision though belatedly of terminating the services of all the seventeen teachers/non-teaching staff by order dated 2/6/2008, which was to come into effect on 1/7/2008. 4. The issuance of the said termination order resulted in the said respondents’ filing two sets of appeal being Appeal Nos.31 of 2008 and 55 of 2008. In the said appeals, an application being made, interim stay came to be granted even prior to the said termination order which was to come into force on 1/7/2008. The 2206wp4536.09.odt 4 said respondents, therefore, continued in service of the petitioner/Society during the pendency of the said two appeals. 5. The said two appeals came to be allowed by the judgments and orders dated 26/11/2008 and 27/11/2008. It would be significant to note that the focus of challenge of both the Appeals is the same termination order dated 2/6/2008, which was passed by the petitioner-Society on the ground that there was no compliance of the procedure in the matter of the appointments of the said respondents. 6. It is further significant to note that though the companion Appeal being No.55 of 2008 was also allowed, the petitioner-Society, for the reasons best known to it, has chosen to file the instant writ petition only against the judgment and order dated 27/11/2008 in Appeal No.31 of 2008 which covers the eleven respondents herein. 7. It is further significant to note that though fifteen respondents were originally joined, who were all the appellants in Appeal No.31 of 2008, pertinently four respondents i.e. respondent 2206wp4536.09.odt 5 nos.5, 11,13 and 15 have been deleted on the ground that the Society has amicably resolved the dispute with them. This in a way epitomises the conduct of the Management viz a viz, the seventeen respondents who were originally terminated by the order dated 2/6/2008. 8. In so far as the order of the School Tribunal is concerned, the School Tribunal has inter alia recorded a finding that in the teeth of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 14/6/2006 it was implied that the procedural lapses, if any, in the appointments of the said respondents were not to be taken into consideration but the only aspect to be taken into consideration was whether the said respondents were eligible or not for being appointed. The Tribunal has also further observed that though the Management, as directed in the said order, was to take the assistance of the representative of the Education Officer, the action taken by the Management shows that there was no compliance with the direction issued by this court. The Tribunal has further observed that the eligibility includes only the educational as well as training qualification and Management was not to take into consideration the procedural aspects of the appointments of the respondents. The Tribunal was 2206wp4536.09.odt 6 of the view that it was also not the case of the Management that the appellants were not qualified and eligible. The Tribunal has further observed that since the appellants before the Tribunal had completed more than 10 to 17 years of services, most of them have crossed the age-limit and therefore they would have difficulty in seeking fresh employment. The Tribunal was also of the view that the minor procedural lapses or lacunae should not be laid at the door of the said respondents/appellants and therefore the termination of the services of the said respondents was not warranted. In view of the fact that the said respondents had continued pursuant to the stay of the termination order granted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal ordered that they would be deemed to be continued in services without any break and entitled to continuity of service and service benefits. 9. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court reported in 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 225 in the matter of Ashok Asramji Gabhane ..vs.. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and ors. is misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case, more especially having regard to the directions contained in the order 2206wp4536.09.odt 7 dated 14/6/2006. 10. Having considered the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which is in the teeth of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this court, as contained in the order dated 14/6/2006 passed in W.P.No.2070 of 2004, and the subsequent conduct of the Management to selectively file the instant petition only against the Appellants in Appeal No.31 of 2008, in my view, the petitioners are not entitled to exercise of any discretion in the writ jurisdiction of this court. In my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the School Tribunal, which calls for interdiction of this court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the Civil Application No.3029 of 2010 does not survive and is disposed of as such. JUDGE chute