wp7021.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7021 OF 2009 Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Umardari, Tq. Mukhed. Through its President, Shivaji s/o Nagorao Jadhav, R/o-Shivrai Nagar, Malegaon Road, Taroda (Kh.), Tq. & Dist-Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Education Officer(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, 3) Madhav s/o Govind Godhane, R/o-Phulwal, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.U.B. Bilolikar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.B.V. Wagh , A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri.V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... wp7021.09 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner management challenges the order dated 6th August, 2009 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, which facilitated the Respondent No.3 - Madhav Govind Godhane, to claim that he was granted approval and was allowed to join the services as a teacher. 3. It is stated that Respondent No.3 was appointed as a teacher on 5th July, 1993. In the year 2006, as he was not feeling well, he was sent to Medical Board for examination and thereafter he wp7021.09 3 was not allowed to join the duties. 4. The case of the Petitioner Management is that since the year 2006, the Respondent No.3 did not turn up. Therefore, by communication dated 16th May, 2007, addressed to the Respondent No.3, his services were terminated. The said communication was sent Under Certificate of Posting. 5. Shri. Sakolkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 submits that Respondent No.3 has not received any such termination order. In between, some meeting took place in presence of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded and certain instructions were received. The Respondent No.3 claims that by communication dated 18th September, 2009, addressed by the Head Master, Shivaji School, Cidco, Nanded, to Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, the Respondent No.3 was allowed to join the duties on wp7021.09 4 18th September, 2009. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Management submits that under pressure, Respondent No.3 was allowed to join the duties. The concerned Head Master had filed complaint to the Management. Police complaint was also filed. 7. The Respondent No.3 filed detail affidavit in reply and denied all the allegations levelled against him. The learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submitted that the Education Officer had made communication to Deputy Director of Education, recommending withdrawal of the recognition granted in favour of Petitioner Management. The counsel for the Petitioner Management submits that the Director, Education, by reasoned order, rejected the proposal for appointment of an administrator. 8. The facts giving rise to this Petition is wp7021.09 5 a matter of concern. Under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder, statutory forum is created for redressal of grievance of the employees like Respondent No.3. The Management is also entitled to take appropriate action in accordance with law, in case it is found that the teacher is not attending the school, or is not required to be continued any further. Keeping aside all this statutory procedure, the Authority like Education Officer, has resorted to hold meetings in his chamber and issued certain directions. Though the Petitioner Management has alleged that they have terminated the services of the Respondent No.3 on 16th May 2007, the Head Master of the Petitioner Management allowed the Respondent No.3 to join his services on 18th September, 2009. The Petitioner Management is now raising issues which are disputed questions of facts. wp7021.09 6 9. In exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, in the light of the disputed questions raised before us, we decline to entertain the Petition. The Petitioner Management is entitled to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in case the Petitioner Management desires to terminate the services of Respondent No.3. 10. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp7021.09