1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3216 of 2008 [Jijamata Shikshan Sanstha & another Vs. R.C. Mhetre & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. A.D. Sonak, AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 3. ----- Coram : B.H. Marlapalle AND A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 04th December, 2008. Heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners-Management, and the Management is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 19th March, 2008 rendered by the Grievance Committee for entertaining complaints of Shikshan Sevaks. On 13th August, 2005, the Management released an advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Shikshan Sevaks, and there were two posts in the Secondary School and two posts were in the Primary School. By following the due process of selection, the respondent no.1 along with Ms. Vijaya A. Magar came to be appointed in the primary section as Shikshan Sevaks for a period of three years with effect from 1st October, 2005, and the respondent no.1 belongs to Other Backward Class. Within less than one year, all the four teachers came to be removed from service. The other three, 2 including Ms. Magar, were reinstated, but the respondent no.1 was not shown this favour and, therefore, he filed Appeal No. 65 of 2006 before the Grievance Committee for entertaining complaints of Shikshan Sevaks. The learned Member of the Committee framed following issues:- “1] Whether the appointment of the appellant had been made by following due process of law? 2] Whether the management prove that the appointment of the appellant was made by the then Head Master without consulting management? 3] Whether the work and behaviour of the appellant were not satisfactory? 4] whether the opportunity was given to the appellant of being heard before terminating his services as Shikshan Sevak? 5] Whether the appellant prove that his services are liable to be reinstated with continuity in service and back wages? 6] Whether the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by law of limitation? 7] What relief and order?” The Grievance Committee held that the appointment of the present respondent no.1 was made by following the due process of law, and more particularly the procedure set out in the Govt. Resolution dated 13th October, 2000. The Committee further held that there was no material to hold that the respondent no.1's work or behaviour was unsatisfactory and that he was not heard 3 before impugned termination order dated 28th April, 2006 was issued. It is clear that the present petitioners could not support the order of termination before the Grievance Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the Memo dated 29th March, 2006 submitted by the Headmaster to the President-Secretary of respondent no.1- Society. The record does not show that the respondent no.1 was issued any Show-cause- Notice, was heard on such Show-cause-Notice and the termination order was in keeping with the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order passed by the Grievance Committee and impugned in this petition. Hence the Writ Petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. JUDGE JUDGE |hedau|