1 wp2212-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2212 OF 2011 Chandrahar Patil Gramin Shikshan Sanstha Khatav and Ors. . Petitioners Vs. Sou.Shubhangi Babanrao Pawar and another .. Respondents Mr.Amol Gatre and Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh for the petitioners Mr.Laxman Deshmukh for respondent no.1 Mr.S.D.Rairikar, A.G.P. for respondent no.2 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 22nd JULY, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners original respondents nos.1, 2 and 3 the Management challenges the order dt.3.2.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur on Exh.5 staying the operation and implementation of the termination order dt.22.1.2011 and directing the petitioners to allow the 2 wp2212-11.doc respondent no.1 to resume her duties. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that initially respondent’s services were terminated on 25.7.2009. The said order was challenged by the respondent no.1 in Appeal No.49 of 2000. In that appeal, Tribunal granted interim stay on 16.11.2009. Pursuant to the interim order, the respondent was reinstated and at present he is in service. The said Appeal no.49 of 2000 is disposed of on 24.1.2011 holding that it became infructuous in view of the approval granted by Education Officer to respondent no.1’s appointment. In the meanwhile, considering the behaviour of respondent no.1, the management issued termination order dt.24.1.2011. The said order was challenged by respondent no.1 by preferring an Appeal before the School Tribunal bearing Appeal No.6 of 2011. In that appeal, respondent no.1 preferred application for interim relief to stay the effect of termination order dt.24.1.2011 and the same was allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dt.3.2.2011 passed by School Tribunal was against justice, equity and good conscience and the same was liable to be set aside. He submits that the Tribunal granted 3 wp2212-11.doc interim relief in the form of final relief itself and therefore, same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the Tribunal mainly relied on the G.R. dt.13.10.2000 and held that as the petitioners failed to take approval of Deputy Director of Education before terminating the services of respondent no.1, termination was not according to law. He submits that the G.R.dt.13.10.2000 provides alternate remedy i.e. complaint before the committee of three persons as per clause 17 of the said GR. Therefore, the Tribunal has no Jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by respondent no.4. He further submits that the definition of Shikshan Sevak under section 2(24a) of the M.E.P.S.Act only the G.R. dated 15.2.2007 is referred. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by respondent no.1. He further submits that the Tribunal mainly relies on the previous order in Appeal no.49 of 2000 and held that the petitioners cannot disobey the said order by issuing fresh termination order against respondent no.1. 5. On the other hand, respondent no.1 states that the pleas now raised by the petitioner were not before lower court, as they were not raised by them in their affidavit in reply to the 4 wp2212-11.doc application below Ex.5. Therefore, they cannot raise them in the present petition. He further submits that even in the present petition the petitioners have not raised these grounds. He submits that the petitioners without following due process of law issued termination order dt.24.1.2011 and therefore, Tribunal has rightly granted stay. 6. On the basis of these submissions the learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that there is no substance in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, application filed by respondent no.1 below Exh.5 and the reply filed by petitioners. It is admitted fact that objection regarding Jurisdiction of the Tribunal has not been raised by the petitioners either in their reply or in their petition. Therefore, there is no question of considering those objections at present. Though the trial court relied on order passed by the Tribunal in the previous appeal No.49 of 2000, Tribunal has considered other facts for considering whether there is prima facie case for staying the impugned termination order dt. 24.1.2011. Tribunal also observed that impugned appeal is ready for final hearing. It is to be noted that under Article 226 5 wp2212-11.doc and 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not proper for this court to go into the merits of the matter and appreciate the evidence on record. 8. Therefore, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The Tribunal while granting stay order observed that Appeal was ready for final hearing. The Tribunal is directed to decide the Appeal no.6 of 2011 on its own merits within six months from today. (K.K.TATED,J.)