1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1359 OF 2009 1. Shankar s/o Laxman Rawate, Age 45 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Ardhapur, Tq.Ardhapur, District Nanded 2. Rajendra s/o Shyamrao Sable, Age 42 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Ardhapur, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded 3. Sidram s/o Uttam Bhutnar, Age 42 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Dhabdhari, Tq. Himayatnagar, District Nanded 4. Ananda s/o Ramji Maske, Age 42 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Bhokar Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded 5. Chandraprakash s/o Gangaram Jadhav, Age 43 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Dharjani, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded 6. Nagorao s/o Ramji Shembole, Age 38 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Dharjani, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded 7. Bhaurao s/o Dadarao Waghmare, Age 42 years, Occu.Nil, R/o At Post Limgaon, Tq.Hadgaon, District Nanded 8. Madhav s/o Bapurao Kadam, Age 26 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Shelgaon, Tq. Umari, District Nanded 2 9. Smt.Sumitra Laxmanrao Rawate, Age 40 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Virsani, Tq. Himayatnagar, District Nanded 10. Govind s/o Balaji Ghanchakkar, Age 33 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Ardhapur, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded 11. Digambar s/o Maroti More, Age 36 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Ardhapur, Tq.Ardhapur, District Nanded 12. Ashok s/o Kashiram Kavale, Age 29 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Bhalegaon, Tq. Mehkar, District Buldhana .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. Additional Tribal Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati Division, Amravati 3. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Department, Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded 4. The Indian Institute of Drugless Therapy, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded (through its Secretary Purbhajirao s/o Satwarao Tambhare) Station road, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded .. Respondents Shri S.S.Phatale, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri T.W.Pathan, Advocate for respondent No.4 3 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.1360 OF 2009 1. Anil s/o Madhavrao Solanke, Age 35 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Khadki Bazar, Tq. Himayatnagar, District Nanded 2. Ananda s/o Baliram Lone, Age 35 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Loni, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded 3. Ananda Digambar Gurulwad, Age 33 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Bachegaon, Tq. Dharmabad, District Nanded 4. Gangadhar s/o Laxman Alkawar, Age 34 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Bachegaon, Tq. Dharmabad, District Nanded 5. Govind s/o Ganesh Shinde, Age 35 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Dholambri, Tq. Umari, District Nanded 6. Irba Vithalrao Shinde, Age 31 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Sonthana, Tq. Umri, District Nanded 7. Ulhas Mithu Ade, Age 31 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Maldhari Tanda, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded 8. Mainoddin s/o Ahmed Syed, Age 28 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Umri, Tq. Umari, District Nanded 9. Shankar s/o Narsinga Mirewad, Age 29 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad, District Nanded .. Petitioners 4 Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. Additional Tribal Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati Division, Amravati 3. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Department, Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded 4. The Indian Institute of Drugless Therapy, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded (through its Secretary Purbhajirao s/o Satwarao Tambhare) Station road, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded .. Respondents Shri S.S.Phatale, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.B.Khandare, Govt.Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri T.W.Pathan, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 29th JULY 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Since both these petition raise a common question of law, these petitions are being decided by this common Judgment. 5 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati dated 29.1.2009 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners questioning the order of termination of their services. Undisputedly, the petitioners were working as Teacher, Clerk, Cook and Helper in the respondent No.4 – school which is a school receiving grant in aid from the Government from the academic year 1994-95. The aforesaid school where the petitioners were employed is an Ashram school. In the light of the Judgment of the Full Bench in Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal vs. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati, Bhatkya Jamati Aadarsh Prasarak Mandal and others 2003 (3) Mh.L.J.659, the persons like the petitioners do not have the remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act. The petitioners, therefore, would have a remedy of appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati. Since the appeals filed by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati were maintainable, according to us, the impugned order is unsustainable. Shri Jadhav, learned AGP also 6 concedes to the point of the maintainability of the appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati. 4. In the light of that, therefore, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the appeals are remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati for decision, in accordance with law. Since the services of the petitioners have been terminated since 4.8.2005, we direct the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati to decide the aforesaid appeals as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than six months from the receipt of the writ of this Court. 5. Rule is thus made absolute with the aforesaid terms and directions with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/1359-1360.09wp) 7