1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION No.2522 of 2010 Vidyasagar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad & others ...Petitioners Versus Vilas Karbhari Nikam & others ...Respondents ..... Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, advocate for the Petitioners Mr. N.R. Shaikh, AGP for respondent No. 2 ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 29th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the part of Judgment and order dated 01-01-2010 in Appeal No. 32/2008 passed by the In- charge Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad to the extent of payment of compensation of six months salary to the respondent No. 1, who is Original Appellant. 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 itself was illegal and the present petitioner never appointed respondent No.1. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that, when the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was not valid, as also when he was not appointed by the petitioner, there is no question of making the payment of compensation to the respondent No. 1, as directed by the School Tribunal. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the School Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and granted relief which is beyond permissible limits. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the Writ Petition deserves to be entertained. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well learned AGP for the respondent No.2. I have also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 has worked as Clerk with petitioner institution for five years. The School Tribunal while directing the petitioner to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1, has taken recourse to clause (e) of Sub Section 2 of Section 11 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The said clause reads thus :- “ 11(2) (e) Where it is decided not to reinstate the employee or in any other appropriate case, [to give the 3 employee twelve months’ salary (pay and allowances, if any), if he has been in the service of the school for ten years or more and six months salary (Pay and allowances, if any) if he has been in service of the school for less then ten years], by way of compensation regard being had to loss of employment and possibility of getting or not getting suitable employment thereafter, as it may specify ; “ 5. On plain reading of the said clause, it is clear that, the School Tribunal can pass the necessary orders granting compensation to the aggrieved person while rejecting his claim for reinstatement. While entertaining prayer of the respondent for compensation, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal in para No. 18 has observed thus :- “ The appellant has filed affidavit contending that after termination order dated 21-11-2008, he is not gainfully employed elsewhere. It transpires from the record that the appellant has worked with the school of respondent institute for more than five years. The appellant has also completed probationary period satisfactorily. In spite of this, the School Management has terminated the services of appellant. The appellant was not duly selected by the School Management by following selection process, and 4 therefore, appellant cannot be reinstated in the service. As indicated above, the appellant has stated on oath that he is not gainfully employed any where else. Considering the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that there is less possibility of getting suitable employment in near future. There is loss of employment. Under such circumstances, recourse of clause (e) of Sub Section (2) of Section 11 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 can be taken and appellant can be compensated adequately by awarding compensation. Therefore, to my mind following order would meet the ends of justice.” 6. Therefore, assuming for a while that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was not made by the petitioner Management, however, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner for compensation. The order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal is in the interest of justice to compensate the respondent No. 1. Viewed from any angle, no case is made out by the petitioner to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and same is rejected. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) SDM* WP2522.10