1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7353 OF 2006 Anupam Shikshan Prasarak Shikshan Mandal & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Jagannath Yashwant Shinde & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr. R. S. Apte with Mr. A.A. Garge for the Petitioner. Mr. R.B. Paranjape for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.S. Rao for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. March 31, 2008. P.C.: Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. The services of the First Respondent, who was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in June 2001, were terminated by an order 2 dated 18th October 2003. The ground on which the termination was effected was that in the year 2003-04 the strength of the students had reduced. The School Tribunal was of the view that the reduction of the strength was shown from the month of September 2003. From the observation of the Tribunal in paragraph 3 of the judgment, it would appear that the Tribunal was not inclined to accept the contention of the Management on the ground that it was not believable that the reduction of the students' strength took place in the middle of the Academic Year. Moreover, the Tribunal was of the view that even thereafter the First Respondent had continued in service until October 2004 and since the total period of service was in excess of three years, the First Respondent was liable to be confirmed in service as a permanent employee. An order of reinstatement with back wages was passed. The Administrative Officer of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation School Board has filed an affidavit in these proceedings in which it has been stated that the First Respondent was appointed as Shikshan Sevak for one year in June 2000. The appointment was approved for the Academic Years 2001- 3 02 and 2002-03. However, during the course of Academic Year 2003, there was a reduction in the number of students and instead of approving six teachers, the Department granted its approval only for four teachers. Since the First Respondent stood at Sr.No. 6 in the Seniority List, his appointment was not approved and the first four teachers, in accordance with seniority alone, were approved. It has been stated in the affidavit that on 30th September 2002, the total strength of students was 311 and average attendance was 214. However, as on 30th September 2003, the total strength of the students had come down to 145 while an average attendance was reduced to 132 students. It appears from the record that a communication dated 2nd September 2005 was addressed on behalf of the School Board of the Municipal Corporation directly to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has in the course of its judgment stated that it was not the practice to accept letters sent by Post and that consequently, there was no Written Statement of the School Board on the record. 4 During the course of the hearing of these proceedings, Learned Counsel for the contesting parties have agreed before the Court that having regard to the defence which has now been taken on behalf of the School Board before this Court, it would be appropriate and proper that the judgment and order of the School Tribunal dated 2nd July 2005 is quashed and set aside by consent and proceedings are remitted back to the School Tribunal for disposal afresh after furnishing an opportunity to the First and Second Respondents to file their Written Statements. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the following directions: (i) The impugned order of the School Tribunal dated 2nd July 2005 is quashed and set aside and Appeal No.31/04 is restored to the file; (ii) The First and Second Respondents shall be at liberty to file their Written Statements before the School Tribunal on or before 28th 5 April 2008; (iii) Parties shall appear before the School Tribunal for directions on 29th April 2008 on which date, the Tribunal shall set down a time schedule for the expeditious disposal of the proceedings; (iv) All the rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open to be urged before the School Tribunal. The Petition shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms since no other point has been pressed. There shall be no order as to costs. .....