1 lpa186.08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1673 OF 2008 The Chairman, Khadkeshwar Shikshan Prasarak Shikshan Mandal, Satara and Anr. ..Appellants Vs. Sou. Sandhya Ravindra Saygaonkar and Anr. .. Respondents Mr. P.B. Shah for the Appellants. Mr. Suresh S.Pakale for Respondent No.1. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-institution has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2008. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the appellants partly. The order of the termination passed by appellants against the respondent is set aside by the learned Single Judge. However, regarding back wages, the learned Single Judge has directed that the respondent shall be entitled to full back wages from 17-10-1998 till the date of reinstatement, save and except the period from 9-12-1999 till her 2 lpa186.08.sxw appeal was restored by the School Tribunal. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the appellant-institution. Initially, she was appointed on leave vacancy but subsequently, she was given appointment order as a permanent teacher. Since she was given less salary, she made complaint before Taluka Samadeshak Maharashtra Chatra Sena, Satara making grievance about less honorarium paid to her. She filed other complaints regarding not allowing her to sign the muster roll etc. Thereafter she was served with termination order dated 17-10-1998, which she challenged before the School Tribunal. Since the termination order was passed without following the due procedure, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and passed an order of reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and continuity in service. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge confirmed the order of reinstatement but modified the order in respect of back wages by allowing the petition partly. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, is impugned by the appellant institution in this appeal. Learned Counsel Mr. Shah vehemently argued that the School Tribunal has committed gross error in passing the order of reinstatement. It is the case of the respondent that she was permanent teacher and she was terminated without following due process of law. It is not disputed that the respondent was appointed as regular permanent teacher and her services have been terminated without following due process of law. A permanent teacher cannot not be removed from the services without giving opportunity of hearing as per rules. Since the same is not followed, the learned Single Judge confirmed the order of the School Tribunal by partly allowing the petition, by restricting the back wages for particular period. 3 lpa186.08.sxw 2. Learned Counsel Mr.Shah lastly submitted that atleast back wages order may be set aside. He is unable to point out the grounds for setting aside the order of back wages. Feeble attempt was made by Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants regarding the challenge to the reinstatement order. Learned Counsel Mr. Shah further argued that even otherwise respondent was not qualified teacher as she was not holding B.A.B.Ed qualification and she was holding B.A. B.P.Ed. qualification. This argument has not been canvassed before the Tribunal as well as before the learned Single Judge and therefore, learned Counsel cannot raise such point for the first time in LPA and therefore such type of argument cannot be considered by this Court. It is also to be noted that the appellant-institution has itself made permanent appointment of the respondent. Considering the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the School Tribunal, we do not find any fault in the order of learned Single Judge. There is hardly any substance in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)