1 902-wp-10324-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10324 OF 2010 Nimsakhar Education Society, Pune .. Petitioner. V/s. Lallan A. Tripathi & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Tushar Sonawane i/b. P. S. Hagare, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. M. Joshi, for Respondent No.1. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 12th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 By this Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner-Original Respondent Management challenges the order dated 25th November, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No.16 of 2010 passed below Exhibit 27, rejecting Petitioner’s application for issuing directions to Respondent No.1 to file certificate of his educational qualification in the pending Appeal. 2 902-wp-10324-2010.sxw 3 A few facts of the matter are as under:- The Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.16 of 2010 under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service), Regulation Act, 1977 before the School Tribunal, Pune for declaring that the termination order dated 29th April, 2010 issued by the Petitioner-Management is null and void and in-operative and to set it aside and to direct the Petitioner to reinstate/continue the Respondent No.1 in service in the same post of Head Master and to give him all the benefits of back-wages, increments,,etc. The said Appeal was filed on 13th May, 2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed their Written Statement being Exhibit ‘9’ on 23rd July, 2010. During pendency of the Appeal, Petitioner preferred application below Exhibit-22 for issuing directions to the Respondent No.1 to produce original service book. The said application below Exhibit-22 came to be allowed on 11th November, 2010, directing Respondent No.1 to submit a copy of service book and also to supply copy of the service book to the Petitioner-Management and produce original service book for verification of the Petitioner-Management and their Counsel. 4 Thereafter the Petitioner preferred application below Exhibit-27 dated 25th November, 2010 calling upon Respondent No.1 to file certificate of his educational qualification. The said application was 3 902-wp-10324-2010.sxw rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune by impugned order dated 25th November, 2010. The learned Presiding Officer in para 4 categorically held that the Petitioner intentionally delayed the proceeding filed by the Applicant. It is observed by the School Tribunal that on 28th August, 2010, Appeal was posted for final hearing. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 argued matter finally on 1st October, 2010 and concluded his arguments on the next date i.e. 18th October, 2010. On the same day i.e. on 18th October, 2010, the Petitioner engaged new Counsel Mr. R.J. Nimbalkar. He sought an adjournment. The said application was granted and the matter was posted to 30th August, 2010. On that day, the Petitioner’s Counsel filed application at Exhibit 22 for issuing directions to Respondent No.1 to file his service book. The said application was allowed on 11th November, 2010. Thereafter again, Petitioner filed present Application on 25th November, 2010. The learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal observed in para 4 that the Management was trying to delay the final hearing on one or the other ground. 5 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by School Tribunal is against justice, equity and good conscience and the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that School Tribunal has observed that Respondent No.1 has challenged the order of termination and, therefore, there is no question of producing 4 902-wp-10324-2010.sxw service book and the documents of his educational qualification to be provided by Respondent No.1. 6 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that the Petitioner with an intention to delay the final hearing of the Appeal filed by the present Applicant at belated stage and, therefore, they were not entitled for any relief from this Court. He further submits that their counsel had already argued the matter finally on 1st October, 2010 and concluded his arguments on 18th October, 2010. After the conclusion of his arguments, the Petitioner filed present application Exhibit 27, calling upon Respondent No.1 to produce the original document of his educational qualification. He further submits that the Petitioner in the present Petition challenges the order. The same is not maintainable under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 7 I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, application filed by the Petitioner below Exhibit 27, order below Exhibit 22. It is admitted fact that the Respondent No.1 filed Appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act on 3rd May, 2010 and, thereafter, the Petitioner filed their Written Statement on 23rd July, 2010 at Exhibit 9. Initially, the Petitioner made application below Exhibit 22, calling upon Respondent 5 902-wp-10324-2010.sxw No.1 to produce the original service book. That application was allowed by School Tribunal on 11th November, 2010. It is to be noted that before that Respondent No.1’s Advocate completed his final arguments on 18th October, 2010. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and going through the proceeding I fully agree with the Tribunal that the Petitioner was ought to delay the final decision on one or the other ground and as such the Tribunal rightly rejected the application Exhibit-27. 8 Consequently, I do not find any substance in the present Petition and the same is dismissed. 9 The learned counsel appearing for Petitioner states that the matter is kept on 13th July, 2011 for their arguments whereas the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 states that the matter is kept for judgment. (K.K.TATED, J.)