1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.80 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.80 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.80 OF 2009 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.638 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO.638 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO.638 OF 1999 Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .. Appellant vs. Sarjerao Ramchandra Jadhav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Saral S.Shah for the appellant Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for the respondents CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By order dated 1.7.91, respondent nos.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school run by the appellant. From 1.6.93, the respondent nos.1 was appointed as the acting head of the school. In the year 1995-96, the school became fully aided. In the 2 academic year 1994-95, the appellant started another secondary school and by order dated 10.06.95, respondent nos.1 was transferred to the said new school which was unaided. He did not report at the transferred place. Hence, order came to be issued on 11.7.95 against the appellant that his service was terminated on account of abandonment of service. Respondent nos.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal. The said appeal came to be allowed. By the said order, the termination order dated 11.7.95 came to be set aside and it was directed that the respondent be reinstated with back wages as an Assistant Teacher since the date of termination till he is reinstated. Being aggrieved by the said order, Writ Petition No.638 of 1999 came to be preferred by the Appellant. The said Writ Petition came to be rejected. Hence, this L.P.A. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appointment of the respondent was against the reserved post and hence, observation of the learned single Judge that he is a permanent employee is incorrect. However, the record, especially the reply of the education officer as well as the written 3 statement filed by the Education Officer before the Tribunal shows that the approval had been accorded to the appointment of the respondent on permanent basis by letter dated 4.2.95. In view of the record, it is clear that the status of the respondent was of permanent nature in an aided school. From the order dated 4.2.95, it is clear that the appointment of the respondent no.1 was approved as a permanent teacher. From the Government Circular SSN/2692/150703, Mantralaya Bombay dt.11.11.94 issued by State of Maharashtra it is clear that it is not permissible for the management to transfer the respondent from a school which was aided to a school which was unaided. The school to which respondent came to be transferred is admittedly an unaided school. In such case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the transfer of the respondent from an aided school to an unaided school was contrary to the State Government Circular. In view of this circular, the respondent was justified in not reporting at the new school where he was transferred. 4. We have already observed that in view of the circular as the 2nd school was unaided, the respondent 4 was justified in not reporting to the new school. By his act of not reporting at the unaided school, it cannot be said that the respondent voluntarily abandoned his services. In these circumstances, the School Tribunal was justified to direct reinstatement and full payment of back wages. We see no error or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge in upholding the order of the Single Tribunal. There is no merit in the matter. Petition is dismissed with costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.)