bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2008 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1687 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1687 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1687 OF 2008 The President/Secretary, Mahatma Phule Vidya Prasarak Mandal & anr. ... Petitioners v/s 1. Alekha A.Gaikwad 2. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. ... Respondents Mr.R.S.Apte i/by Vaibhav Patankar for the petitioners. Mr.Dilip Bodake for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. The petition has been filed against the order dated 3.5.2008 of the School Tribunal in Appeal No.18 of 2008. A curious procedure has been adopted by the School Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. The appeal was filed on 2.4.2008. The notice to the respondents was issued on the same day. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, the respondent No.1 Teacher had also 2 filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as required under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. On 15.4.2008, the Secretary of the petitioners was present in Court and sought an adjournment. This adjournment was granted "as a last chance" as the matter was adjourned for filing the Vakalatnama of the advocate for the petitioner and to file a say to the application for condoning the delay. On 23.4.2008 i.e. the adjourned date, the petitioners appeared alongwith their advocate and filed the Vakalatnama on that date. An application for adjournment was again granted in order to file a reply to the application for condonation of delay. The matter was adjourned to 25.4.2008. On that day, the reply was filed to the application for condonation of delay as also a reply to the appeal as well. The matter was then adjourned to 28.4.2008 for arguments on the application for condoning the delay. On this date, arguments were heard and an affidavit was filed by the Head Master of the petitioners in support of the reply with respect to condoning the delay as well as to the reply to the appeal. It was stated therein that the documents which had been produced by the respondents could be forged as most of the documents which had been produced were confidential and were not for circulation in public. The Tribunal allowed the application filed for condoning the delay. The appeal 3 was directed to be registered. The matter was then adjourned for arguments to 2.5.2008. 3. It is surprising that the Tribunal has adjourned the appeal for arguments without fixing the matter for production of documents or for leading evidence. On 2.5.2008, the petitioner made an application for adjournment for filing documents which was objected to by the respondent teacher. The Tribunal then directed parties to argue the appeal since according to him, there was no need to grant any adjournment. On the next date i.e. on 3.5.2008, the appeal was allowed and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent teacher on the post of Assistant Teacher within 40 days from the date of the order by paying all consequential benefits including the back wages from the date of termination of services till reinstatement. 4. The indecent haste with which the Tribunal has disposed of the appeal has caused justice to be thrown to the winds. The basic requirement when an appeal before the School Tribunal is filed is that the appeal must be filed within time. If the appeal has been filed after the prescribed period, then there must be an application for condoning the delay which has to be filed before the appeal can be registered. In fact, the 4 respondent institution need not file a reply to the appeal till the appeal is registered. After the delay is condoned and the appeal is registered, the appeal must be heard in the prescribed manner. The respondent management must be permitted to file a reply to the appeal. The matter should then be fixed for filing documents by both parties. Thereafter, it should be fixed for evidence and only after all these steps have been undertaken, should the Tribunal then decide the matter, hearing arguments of both parties. 5. In the present case, the Tribunal has without waiting for deciding the application for the delay, called upon the respondent to file its reply to the appeal. Not being satisfied with that, the Tribunal has then disallowed an application for adjournment for production of documents on the second day after the delay was condoned and the appeal was registered. The application for an adjournment was filed by the petitioner because the son-in-law of the Secretary had met with an accident and was seriously ill and, therefore, it was not possible to produce the documents as the documents were in the Secretary’s custody. The School Tribunal, for reasons best known to it, has disallowed the application for an adjournment. No reasons in fact have been stated for rejecting the 5 application filed by the petitioners. It has decided to hear and dispose of the appeal on that very date merely because the application for adjournment was objected to by the respondent. 6. This procedure, in my opinion, is wholly unwarranted. There is no doubt that the School Tribunal should endeavour to dispose of matters as early as possible but that does not mean that the Tribunal should ignore procedural requirements of deciding the appeal. The desire to dispose of the matters quickly should not lead to injustice to parties. The tribunal ought to have granted the application for an adjournment to produce the documents. It cannot be said that the appeal was pending for a long period of time and, therefore, the adjournment application was justifiably refused. The appeal was filed only on 2.4.2008. The delay was condoned on 28.4.2008 and the appeal was registered on that day. On the next adjourned date i.e. on 2.5.2008, an application for adjournment was sought. In my view, the tribunal has completely ignored the requirements of law and natural justice. Assuming what the learned advocate for the respondent states is correct, that the Tribunal does not have too many matters pending before it and therefore all matters are disposed of early, this does not mean that an early 6 disposal should be equated with a hasty disposal of a matter. Matters can always be disposed of early without sacrificing justice at the alter of haste breath taking speed. 7. In my view, therefore, the application for adjournment filed by the petitioners ought to have been granted. 8. Civil application has been filed for placing on record the documents which the petitioners desire to file before the Court. I need not consider these documents at this stage as that would be within the realm of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 9. The order passed by the School Tribunal on 3.5.2008 allowing the appeal is set aside. 10. The School Tribunal will permit the petitioners to file documents on record. The School Tribunal will then hear and dispose of the appeal after permitting parties to lead evidence, if they so desire. 11. Parties will remain present before the School Tribunal on 29.9.2008 7 12. The petitioners shall file the documents that they want to produce before the Court on that day itself. 13. Civil application No.1687 of 2008 disposed of in view of disposal of the petition.