1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 579/2007 Ku. Pratima d/o Vishnupant Khadge vs. Head Master, Nutan Vidyalaya, Kaotha, Tahsil Deoli, District Wardha and others. ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.Lavande & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 21.1.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 27.1.2009 Heard Mr. S.R.Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parihar, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. Mr. D.C.Mishra, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is absent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31.1.2007 passed by respondent no.2 by which the services of the petitioner were sought to be terminated after 90 days. 3. The petitioner was appointed by respondent no.2 as assistant teacher in Nutan Vidyalaya, Kaotha run by respondent no.2 in terms of the appointment order dated 29.6.1998. The appointment of the petitioner was in the post reserved for scheduled tribe. The caste certificate of the petitioner was sent to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Caste Scrutiny Committee 2` by order dated 25.6.2004 invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner which was challenged by filing W.P.No. 4707/2004. The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to make representation to respondents 1 and 2. The petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to make representation with a further direction if such representation was made to respondents 1 and 2 herein, the respondents 1 and 2 shall decide the same on its own merits within eight weeks. 4. Thereafter, the Management took a decision to accommodate the petitioner in the post reserved for Special Backward Class. However, the action of the Management was not approved by respondent no.3. Consequently, by communication dated 31.1.2007 the respondent no.2 sought to terminate the services of the petitioner after a period of 90 days. The petitioner has challenged the said communication by filing the present petition. This court by order dated 21.2.2007 stayed the said order and the said interim order is in operation till date. 5. On behalf of the respondent no.3 affidavit has been filed opposing the petition. One of the grounds taken therein is that the petitioner being assistant teacher in a school run by respondent no.2, remedy by way of appeal 3` to the School Tribunal is available to the petitioner and since effective alternate remedy is available to the petitioner the petition be not entertained. 6. Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 31.1.2007 is not an order of termination but it is only a notice addressed to the petitioner intimating her that her services shall be terminated after a period of 90 days and, therefore, remedy by way of appeal to the School Tribunal under the Maharashtra Private School Employees (Service & Conditions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'MEPS Act' for short) is not available to the petitioner and only effective and alternate remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the impugned order before this court by filing writ petition. 7. Per contra, Mr. Parihar, learned A.G.P. submitted that the petitioner has a very effective remedy of filing an appeal under Section 9(1) of the M.E.P.S.Act and this is not a fit case in which this court should exercise writ jurisdiction in spite of availability of effective alternate remedy. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. and having perused the record, we are of the considered 4` opinion, that the petitioner is not liable to be entertained since the petitioner has an effective remedy of filing appeal against the impugned order dated 31.1.2007 before the School Tribunal under Section 9(1) of the M.E.P.S. Act. Indisputably, the petitioner is assistant teacher in a private school and the remedy of appeal which is an effective remedy of filing appeal before the School Tribunal against the impugned order is available to the petitioner. We find no merit in the submission of Mr. Narnaware that the impugned order dated 31.1.2007 is not the order of termination but only it is a notice intimating the petitioner about terminating her services. In our considered opinion, this is not a fit case in which the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be entertained notwithstanding availability of efficacious and alternate remedy by way of appeal under Section 91 of the M.E.P.S.Act. On this ground alone we are not inclined to entertain the petition. 9. In the result, therefore, the petition is rejected. Interim order dated 21.2.2007 which has been continued from time to time stands vacated. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`