1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3750 OF 2009 Abhijit Arunrao Bhoyar -: versus :- The Hon'ble Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and others. WRIT PETITION No. 5055 OF 2009 Ku. Shabana Khillarkhan -: versus :- Sanjivaji Shikshan Sanstha and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2010. This Court is considering the matter since long. Contention of both the petitioners [terminated shikshan sevaks] is that School Tribunal ought to have in any case directed management to absorb them against the two posts of of Assistant Teachers which have become available subsequently i.e. after their termination. Today during hearing, support is sought to be taken from the resolution dated 10.06.2005, particularly Clause Nos. 4 and 5 to substantiate this stand. Shri De, learned counsel appearing for Management states that this government resolution dated 10.06.2005 was not before the School Tribunal and hence he is not in a position to assist the court about its correct interpretation. He further points out that the two posts of Assistant Teacher are meant for some other subject and at the most one of the petitioners can be absorbed provided he is legally found to be entitled for such 2 absorption/continuation. He further states that as per the orders of this Court, the Education Officer has considered the issue of availability of two posts of assistant teacher and the report of the education officer is not correct, because the work load available with the management is of different subjects. He therefore, states that the education officer has to reconsider the entire controversy after hearing management. Respective leaned A.G.P. states that as per the orders of this Court dated 17.11.2009 the papers have been considered and the availability of two posts of assistant teacher is established on record. The School Tribunal has not recorded any finding about the entitlement of the petitioner to absorption or continuation against posts becoming available subsequently i.e. after their respective dates of termination. The learned counsel for petitioners are relying upon provisions of Section 11 of the M.E.P.S. Act, to point out the availability of such jurisdiction to the School Tribunal. Moreover, government resolution dated 10.06.2005 is also being relied upon for said purpose. The said government resolution is not produced before the School Tribunal and therefore it has no occasion to look into it. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate to direct the School Tribunal to hear the petitioners about the scope of Section 11 and also about the government resolution dated 10.06.2005 to find out whether the petitioners are entitled to absorption against the vacancies which have become available subsequently. Considering the grievance of management that the finding of education officer in his report submitted as per the orders of this Court dated 17.11.2009 of this Court are 3 not correct, the Education Officer [secondary] Zilla Parishad Yavatmal is directed to hear the respondent /management as also both the petitioners and thereafter find out the number of post of assistant teacher becoming available and the subjects for which such posts became available. The Education Officer shall take such decision as early as possible and in any case within a period of two months from today. The parties to appear before the Education Officer on 30.04.2010 and shall abide by his further instructions in the matter. The School Tribunal shall decide the controversy referred to it as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to it. The parties shall be at liberty to produce additional documents before the School Tribunal for its consideration. The impugned common judgment of School Tribunal dated 03.08.2009 in Appeal Nos. 40 and 41 of 2009 is set aside and both the Appeals are restored back to the file of the School Tribunal, Amravati for taking decision as mentioned above. Writ Petitions are allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.