1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 722/2008 Ramesh Yeshwantrao Ghatol vs. Jivan Jyoti Gramin Shikshan and Samaj Sudhar Samittee and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 9 th FEBRUARY , 2009 C.A. NO. 9569/2008 Heard Shri Rajgure, Advocate, for the petitioner/applicant, Shri Kaslikar, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 & 2 and Shri Sonare,A.G.P. for respondent No.3. The School Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction over the matter inasmuch as the petitioner was Shikshan Sewak. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the School Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the subject matter in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8313/2008; Principal – Ourt Lady of Salvation High School vs. Ms. Rashmi Upadhyay and ors. 2 I have gone through the judgment. It appears that the School Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, this application has to be considered. To be considered along with petition. W.P.NO. 722/2008 Heard Shri Rajgure, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Kaslikar, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 & 2 and Shri Sonare,A.G.P. for respondent No.3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, dismissing his appeal. The School Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction, inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sewak. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was appointed, there was no question of appointing him as Shikshan Sewak. It is also his submission that all the relevant documents are fabricated by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 taking advantage of 3 the fact that the scheme of Shikshan Sewak was introduced some time after his appointment as teacher. At this stage, I do not propose to enter into the controversy as to whether the petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sewak or teacher. Fact remains that in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8313/2008; Principal – Ourt Lady of Salvation High School vs. Ms. Rashmi Upadhyay and ors, the School Tribunal would be having jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, this matter needs to be remitted back to the School Tribunal, Amravati, for deciding afresh after hearing both the parties. The result is, the order of the School Tribunal, Amravati, dated 8.1.2008 in Appeal No. 5/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to it for fresh disposal after hearing both the parties. It is made clear that the School Tribunal shall not be influenced by any of the observations made above. Petition disposed of. 4 JUDGE Rvjalit