1 WP 8104.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8104 OF 2011 1. The Secretary Adiwasi Mahila Mandal, Barbada, Tq. Naigaon (Kh)., Dist. Nanded. 2. The Head Master Shivaji Maharaj High School, Kopra, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Dhanu Trimbakrao Swami Age : Major, Occ. Service ( At present nil ), R/o : Kopra, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 2. The Education Officer ( Secondary ), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.J.Godbole, Advocate for Resp. No. 1 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19/10/2011 2 WP 8104.2011 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent no. 1 had filed Appeal before the School Tribunal against the order of termination issued by the present petitioners. The School Tribunal allowed the Appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. V.D.Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.J.Godbole, the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the respective parties have placed their reliance on various documents and the legal proposition. Mr. V.D.Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners along with the Written Statement have filed number of documents and contended that the said documents are sufficient to imply that the respondent no. 1 was appointed from reserved category. 5. Mr. Godbole, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that those documents on which reliance is placed, more 3 WP 8104.2011 - [ J ] particularly, the documents such as Hami Patra and the documents shown to have been written by respondent no. 1, they are forged and fabricated documents and the signatures have been mis used. The learned counsel further contends that even otherwise the appointment order which is produced by the petitioners along with the Written Statement and before this Court, is not in the prescribed form. The source of the right is the advertisement issued. The advertisement has to be issued in the prescribed proforma and the advertisement nowhere shows that the appointment was to be made of the candidate from reserved category. Mr. V.D.Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Rule 9 ( 8 ) of the M.E.P.S. Rules is not attracted. 6. From the perusal of the Judgment of the School Tribunal, it is manifest that the School Tribunal has not given any finding about the genuineness of the document produced by the petitioners. The Tribunal is required to take into consideration every facet of the case as putforth by the parties. The documents placed on record by the petitioners vis-a-vis its genuineness and relevancy, so also the documents and the case put forth by respondent no. 1 and thereafter has to arrive at the conclusion. The efficacy of the documents with regard to the legal position is also required to be taken into consideration. 4 WP 8104.2011 - [ J ] 7. No finding is given about the genuineness of the documents produced. I deem it appropriate to relegate the parties to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh by giving specific findings on the said documents and considering the relevancy of the same vis-a-vis the legal position. It would be in nobody’s interest to keep the matter pending. 8. In view of the above, the parties are relegated to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the said Appeal afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties and giving finding on the genuineness of the documents produced, so also its relevancy vis-a-vis the legal position. 9. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside on the grounds stated above. The Tribunal shall decide the proceedings within the period of four ( 4 ) months from today. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 05/11/2011. The Tribunal shall adopt the procedure as laid down in law to come to the conclusion about the genuineness of the documents. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP WP 8104.2011 - [ J ] 5 WP 8104.2011 - [ J ]