*1* wp.7150.02.31.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7150 OF 2002 Anita Dharmaraj Dhotrekar. ..Petitioner -Versus- The President, Sahyadri Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.S.G.Kudle, for the Petitioner. Mr.Haribhau Deshinge i/b Mr.Nitin Jamdar, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 22nd August, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner is original Appellant in Appeal No.80/2001 filed before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur. She stated that there is educational institution, namely, Sahyadri Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and it manages and administers the secondary and higher secondary school at Solapur. It has also other educational institutions. One Babrawan Bhanudas Awatade was President of the Institution. The Institution is managed and administered by the public trust. The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Sahyadri Primary School, Solapur on 01.08.1991. She belongs to the Scheduled Caste and she is qualified and trained teacher. She was appointed as Headmistress of the primary school from 03.03.1999. Even her appointment was approved by the Management. The Petitioner states that the staff members were not giving her necessary cooperation. They were insulting and harassing her because she belongs to the backward class. Due to harassment, non cooperation and continuous insult, the Petitioner was forced to give *2* wp.7150.02.31.sxw resignation. That resignation was accepted by the Respondent No.2 without any authority. The resignation letter dated 28.04.2001 was immediately acted upon and incharge Headmaster was appointed. The Petitioner decided to make a grievance and withdrew her resignation on 07.05.2001, but since the resignation was not allowed to be withdrawn and she was not permitted to resume her duties, that she has filed the subject appeal. 2 It is pertinent to note that a written statement was filed by the President of the Trust and a specific stand taken therein is that the Petitioner is working in the primary school and she was promoted and appointed as headmistress. The Respondent No.1 who represented the Educational Institution stated that they have no grievance against the Petitioner nor have made complaint about her working. It is the Respondent No.2, who taking advantage of the fact that there are disputes and proceedings initiated before the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, accepted her resignation although he had no authority or power to do so. The act of the Respondent No.2, thus, is questioned and perusal of the Written Statement would reveal that the Respondent No.1 had no grievance and was not inclined to accept the resignation. 3 When the matter appeared before the School Tribunal, the Presiding Officer, for some strange reasons, has held that the Petitioner has not been able to substantiate her allegation that the resignation was forced one and therefore, amounts to illegal termination. Further, the Petitioner could not prove that the Management committed any illegality in proceeding or acting on the alleged resignation. 4 A perusal of the petition and all annexures thereto with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, reveals that the learned Presiding Officer has not adverted to any of the contentions *3* wp.7150.02.31.sxw raised in the memo of appeal. He has also not referred to the Written Statement which was duly filed in the proceedings. He has not even bothered to peruse the correspondence and other documents placed before him. His order and reasoning, so also, ultimate conclusion appears to be wholly confusing and contradictory. While framing the points for consideration, the learned Presiding Officer answered the same in favour of the Petitioner, yet, dismissed the appeal for some strange reasons. Perusal of the order leaves me in no manner of doubt that it suffers from total non application of mind and perversity. None of the allegation made in the memo of appeal or reply on behalf of the Management has been referred, leave alone considered. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. 5 The appeal preferred by the Petitioner being Appeal No. 80/2001 stands restored to the file of the School Tribunal, Solapur and the Tribunal shall decide it afresh on merits and in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made earlier. The Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions of both sides are kept open. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)