1 wp7823.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7823 OF 2010 Pradip Bhagatsing Patil ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Pachora Taluka Sahakari Shikshan Sanstha and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for respondent no.3. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 25TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Court has issued notice on 30th August, 2010. Though, respondent nos.1 and 2 are served, they are not appearing. Learned A.G.P. appears for respondent no.3. Respondent no.4 is School Tribunal. 2. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioner states that in so far as procurement of certified copy of Schedule-I maintained under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 is concerned, the petitioner can produce certified copy. He however points out that as appointment order in favour of petitioner is issued by Secretary and has been objected to on that ground, it has become necessary for petitioner to point out prevailing practice. According to learned 2 wp7823.10 Counsel, the appointment orders of other staff/teachers are also issued by the Secretary and hence, the directions to produce the said appointment orders ought to have been given. He points out that though the provisions of Right to Information Act may apply to respondent nos. 1 and 2, appointment orders of third persons may be objected to and hence, in order to have expeditious adjudication, the Court should interfere. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent no.3 supports the order of School Tribunal. According to him, when the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1971 and 1981 Rules framed thereunder are very clear, issuance of appointment orders by Secretary to anybody can not be viewed as precedent and is not relevant at all. 3. I do not see it necessary to go into this controversy. The appeal filed by the present petitioner before the School Tribunal is assailing his termination in June, 2009. He claims to have worked from 1995 to 2009 and he has also urged before the School Tribunal that during the said period all the appointment orders are issued by the Secretary only. 4. The matter pertains to termination and hence, the School Tribunal has to decide appeal expeditiously. Infact there was no 3 wp7823.10 reason or justification for management to oppose production of all appointment orders. School Tribunal has given ample powers and should have exercised those powers in the interest of justice to find out truth. It could have also summoned the necessary documents from the respondent no.3-Education Officer. 5. Impugned order to the extent it reject directions to produce appointment orders of other staff/teachers are hereby quashed and set aside. 6. Respondent nos.1 and 2 shall produce the copies of relevant appointment orders as sought for by the petitioner before the School Tribunal by 20th June, 2011. Liberty to petitioner to request the School Tribunal to call for the said documents also from the approval files with the respondent no.3-Education Officer. 7. With these directions, the Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp7823.10