1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 41 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 41 OF 2011 *** 1. The management has assailed the judgment of School Tribunal dated 3rd September, 2010 on four contentions. First and foremost contention is preliminary issue regarding validity of appointment/ recruitment has not been gone into at all. The other contentions are on account of some internal dispute between management and orders passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner. It is also urged that in identical matter decided earlier Tribunal has chosen to rely upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of "Anna Manikrao Pethe V/s Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Amravati and others" reported in 1997 (3) Mh.L.J. 697. Shri Brahme contends that when judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anna Pethe V/s Presiding Officer, School 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 41 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Tribunal (supra) requires School Tribunal to frame and decide the three issues as preliminary issues, at least two issues viz. whether school is recognised one and whether management is in accordance with law ought to have been framed and decided. 2. Advocate Shri Kulkarni for Respondent No.1 employee and learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.3 have supported the impugned order. 3. Advocate Mr. Shri Kulkarni has urged that specific assertion in appeal memo about legal and proper recruitment was not traversed by the respondent/ management before the School Tribunal. 4. I find that judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anna Pethe V/s Presiding Officer, School Tribunal (supra) requires School Tribunal to frame three issues and decide the same as preliminary one. The reinstatement can be ordered after 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 41 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. only those issues are answered in affirmative. The last issue regarding approval by Education Officer does not remain relevant because of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of "St. Ulai High School and another V/s Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh and another" reported in 2007 (6) Mah. L. J. 597. However, here the School Tribunal has not framed any issues as preliminary issue. Though Shri Kulkarni has tried to urge that there was no dispute to legality and validity of appointment of Respondent no.1 before the School Tribunal, I find his pleadings before School Tribunal not very specific. There is no assertion that there was proper advertisement after obtaining no objection from education department, submission of application by him in response thereto and conduct of interview. 5. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to examine the controversy in more 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 41 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. depth. The controversy needs to be looked into by School Tribunal in accordance with law. Hence only for that purpose, impugned judgment order passed on 3rd September, 2010 is quashed and set aside. The School Tribunal shall permit parties to amend their pleadings and thereafter shall grant them opportunity of hearing and dispose of the appeal as early as possible and in any case by 30th June, 2011. Writ petition is, thus, partly allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:31/01/2011. ans/41