1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2593/2010 Navchetan Shikshan Sanstha Vs. The Education Officer, Z.P. And another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Shashikant Borkar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Sonare, AGP for respondent no.1 Mr. A.Z. Jibhakate, Adv. For the respondent no.2. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2] The contention of the petitioner is that the School Tribunal had ignored the fact that respondent no.2 is continuing as full time employee in regular day school and simultaneously has also procured employment with the petitioner in the night school. 3] Advocate Borkar argues that such double employment is not permitted and there was no consent given by the Management of day school for such employment. He, therefore, states that relief of reinstatement as granted by the School Tribunal vide impugned order dated 29th March, 2010 in Appeal No.15/2008 is unsustainable. 4] Advocate Jibhakate points out that provisions of Rule 2 18 of Rules framed under M.E.P.S. Act permitted such employment and, according to him, only reason given in the termination order is alleged non-submission of no objection given by the School. He contends that there is no misconduct at all and hence the order of School Tribunal does not call for any interference. 5] Mr. Sonare, learned AGP present in the Court waives notice for respondent no.1 and states that he would like to obtain instructions in the matter. 6] Advocate Borkar is relying upon the provisions of Rule 22 (i) (g) to urge that such double employment is not permissible. According to him, the provisions of Rule 18 (ii) proviso are not relevant in the present matter. 7] It is clear that some disputed questions, as also question of law arise for consideration. The School Tribunal has found that there was no inquiry conducted in the matter and hence provisions of Rule 4 sub section (6) of M.E.P.S. Rules have not complied with. Advocate Jibhakate attempted to show this Court that adjudication in favour of present respondent no.2 in earlier appeal No.248/1996 to urge that no such ground was then raised and direction to reinstate issued by the School Tribunal was then 3 complied with. Advocate Borkar has attempted to show that reason for termination at that time was entirely different. 8] Respondent no.2 is working as Head Master with the petitioner night school since 1992. In this situation, it is apparent that without giving him opportunity in accordance with the principles of natural justice, action could not have been taken. Hence, as School Tribunal has granted reinstatement, I find that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the Management to proceed in accordance with the law in the manner against respondent no.2 if it so desires. 9] Advocate Jibhakate points out that there are two groups claiming Management of the night school. It is made clear that liberty as given by this Court does not mean that group which has approached this Court is legally recognized as valid and competent to manage the affairs. The inter-se dispute between two groups for the Management of that night school has no bearing in the present matter. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.