1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8640 OF 2009 Shams Education Society ....Petitioner V/s. Smt. Mulla Nasima Jahangir & Ors. ....Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 8642 OF 2009 Shams Education Society ....Petitioner V/s. Smt. Mushrif Nasim Turabddin & Ors. ....Respondents. ---- Mr. Chetan G. Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. Anil Yadav i/b S.M. Tulsankar, for Respondent No.1 Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No. 8640/2010 and for Respondent No.3 in W.P. No.8642/2010. Mr. Sandesh D. Patil, for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. ------ CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 2 nd MARCH, 2010. P.C: 1. Rule in both Writ Petitions. 2. Both Writ Petitions involve a peculiar situation. The Respondent No.1 in both Writ Petitions filed appeals before the School Tribunal challenging the orders of reducation in rank and dismissal. 2 The orders impugned before the School Tribunal were signed by the President and the Secretary one Mr. Javed Jamadar. The written statement in both appeals were filed by the President of the Petitioner- Society. 3. There appears to be a serious dispute regarding the management of the Petitioner-Society. Several change reports have been filed from time to time. An effort has between made to establish as to which party ought to be permitted the management of the Petitioner-Society. That to my mind however is entirely irrelevant in a dispute pertaining to the employment of the person employed by the Petitioner-Society. The validity or otherwise of the order impugned before the School Tribunal does not depend upon who is in management of the Petitioner-Society. It would depend upon the correctness of the orders. 4. In the year 2008 the said Secretary claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Petitioner pursuant to one of the change reports, entered appearance before the School Tribunal and filed the Written Statement which was contrary to the Written Statement filed earlier by the President of the Petitioner-Society. The same was opposed by the Petitioner. The impugned order merely stated: “read and record”. No reasons have been furnished for the orders. Despite the same I do 3 not intend interfering with the impugned order by remanding the same. That would only prejudice the rights, if any, of the employees i.e. Respondent No.1 in both Writ Petitions. They are not concerned with the internal disputes of the Petitioner-Society. 5. The ends of justice would be met by permitting the said Javed Jamadar to intervene for the limited purpose of assisting the School Tribunal in these appeals. There can be no objection for the same by the Petitioner-Society for, by such an order, no rights would be conferred in favour of the said Javed Jamadar qua the management of the Petitioner-Society. The Written Statement shall be considered only as an intervenor’s affidavit. 6. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order which was passed on 24.2.2009 was acted upon. The present Writ Petition was filed only on 5.10.2009 i.e. eight months thereafter. It is important to note that during this period all the parties have in fact argued the matter before the School Tribunal. By an application dated 4.8.2009, the Petitioner’s advocate has sought an adjournment due to his “unavoidable domestic difficulty”. Thereafter on 23.9.2009 another application for adjournment was made on the ground that the Petitioner desires to challenge the impugned order. If the Petitioners were really aggrieved by the impugned order, they ought to have 4 challenged the said order earlier. In any event, the Petitioner not having challenged the impugned order earlier would not confer any rights in favour of any party, including Respondent No.5 in the management of the Society. That will be decided in the change reports which are pending before the Charity Commissioner. 7. With the above clarification, both Writ Petitions are disposed of. 8. It is further clarified that the School Tribunal will decide the matter on the merits of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 in both Writ Petitions.