1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5297 OF 2010 (Ku. Mamta Kisan Selukar .vs. State and Ors.) _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 08, 2011. Heard Mr. A.D.Mohgaonkar, Adv. for the petitioner and Mr.N.W.Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent no.1. The petitioner in this petition is assailing the order dt.1.10.2008 passed by respondent no.2/Education Officer cancelling the approval on dt.31.5.2007 granted to her appointment on probation on no-grant basis. The petitioner contends that the school was admitted to grants in May, 2007. There is no further order of approval in her favour. In the impugned order, the Education Officer has mentioned that the petitioner was found employed as Shikshan Sevak from 1.7.2011 till 24.11.2002 in Sant Kabir Uccha Prathmik School in Bangladesh area, Nagpur and thus, she was having two employments. The approval 2 granted on 31.5.2007, therefore, came to be cancelled and because the petitioner cheated the Government, direction to register an offence also came to be issued. It appears that her employers (respondent nos. 3 and 4) had, in the meanwhile, terminated her services w.e.f. 3.10.2008, which was questioned by the petitioner in appeal STN No.23 of 2008 and vide judgment delivered on 30th March, 2010, the School Tribunal allowed that appeal and set aside the order of termination. Thereafter, the petitioner rejoined on 25.3.2010. After her reinstatement, respondent nos. 3 and 4 claimed that proper departmental enquiry has been conducted and she has been dismissed again. That dismissal forms subject matter of Appeal No.5 of 2011 before the School Tribunal at Nagpur. The prayers in the instant petition are required to be looked into in this background. The first challenge is to the order of cancellation of approval and second relief claimed is in respect of payment of salary. Mr.A.S.Chandurkar, Adv. has contended that as termination order dt.3.10.2008 was passed without holding departmental enquiry, the Management had withdrawn the order of 3 termination and therefore, the School Tribunal delivered judgment on 30.3.2010. Mr.Mohgaonkar, Adv. is not accepting this. He contends that the judgment of the School Tribunal is very clear in this respect. He further argues that, after reinstatement, no enquiry was conducted and ultimately, again a punishment of termination came to be inflicted upon the petitioner. It is, therefore, apparent that unless and until correctness of action of Management in holding departmental enquiry or perversity in findings reached therein is demonstrated, no relief can be given to the petitioner in the present matter. Mr.Mohgaonkar, Adv. has contended that the petitioner has been reinstated on 25.3.2010 and therefore, she is entitled to salary from the date of earlier termination till the date of second termination. He further contends that subsistence allowance has also not been paid. We are not observing anything finally as far as these contentions of the learned Counsel are concerned. Prima facie, it needs to be noted that initial entry into service of the petitioner itself is found to be bad by the Education Officer and therefore, approval has been cancelled. Hence, unless and until there is appropriate findings recorded in this 4 respect, entitlement of the petitioner either to salary or to subsistence allowance in this situation cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. The said exercise needs to be undertaken by the School Tribunal in appeal pending before it. In that appeal, the School Tribunal can also look into correctness or otherwise of the alleged departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner after 25.3.2010. In this view of the matter, we find that, at present, validity or otherwise of the order of cancellation of approval dt. 1.10.2008 as well as entitlement of the petitioner to salary/arrears cannot be decided by this Court. The same can be looked into at the appropriate stage after the facts crystallizes. However, in view of the contention of the petitioner that she is innocent and there is nothing on record to show such double employment, we direct the School Tribunal to decide the appeal bearing No.5 of 2011 as early as possible and in any case, by 31st December, 2011. With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE jais