1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9170 OF 2009 Mr. Rajaram Savalaram Survase. ....Petitioner V/s. 1. Chairman, Shri Narayanrao Babasaheb Education Society & ors. ....Respondents Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Petitioner. Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. A.A. Vanarse, AGP, for the Respondents No.3 and 4. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner was appointed by the first Respondent-Trust as a clerk on or about 28th December, 1993. Respondent No.3, the Education Officer (Secondary) approved the appointment. With the 2 previous permission of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Petitioner acquired B.Ed. qualification in 1999. Respondent No.2 is the Headmistress of the school managed by Respondent No.1. 3. A post of assistant teacher became vacant in the said school The Petitioner applied for the said post. According to the Petitioner, it was a fresh appointment whereas according to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the appointment of the Petitioner to the said post was by way of promotion. The Respondents submitted that the circulars on the basis whereof the post was to be filled in contemplated promotion and not a fresh appointment. The letter of appointment by itself does not indicate the same. It is, therefore, a point which required consideration by the authorities in the first instance. The letter of appointment appointing the Petitioner as an assistant teacher is dated 10th June, 1999. There was no dispute at the time of appointment. In fact, Respondent No.3 approved the appointment. Respondent No.3 did not raise any queries in respect of the validity of the appointment. 4. It appears that Respondent No.4, Deputy Director of Education, by his letter dated 18th January, 2000, raised certain queries regarding the approval granted to the Petitioner’s appointment. Respondent No.1 furnished the required information by its letters dated 3 24th February, 2000 and 3rd February, 2000. It was clarified that the teachers who had complained regarding the Petitioner’s appointment were not senior to the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 contended that the rules provided for reservation of 25% of the posts for promotion to employees as assistant teachers who improve their qualification. It was pointed out that the Petitioner fell within the said category. 5. Considering the view that I have taken, it is not necessary for me to express any final opinion regarding the rival contentions between the parties. Respondent No.3, by a letter dated 14th February, 2000, revoked the Petitioner’s appointment as an assistant teacher. It is an admitted position that neither Respondent No.3 nor Respondent No.4 issued any notice to the Petitioner of the same. It is also admitted that no opportunity of any nature was afforded to the Petitioner at any stage before passing the order dated 14th February, 2000, revoking the approval to the Petitioner’s appointment as an assistant teacher. The order itself was communicated to him. This is one of the orders challenged by the Petitioner in the appeal before the school tribunal. 6. Respondent No.2, on the directions of Respondent No.1 and obviously pursuant to the order dated 14th February, 2000, reverted the Petitioner from the post of assistant teacher to clerk with immediate 4 effect. Although it matters little, it is also admitted that the letter dated 24th February, 2000, was issued by Respondents No.1 and 2 to the Petitioner without granting him any opportunity of explaining his position. The Petitioner thereafter filed the appeal before the school tribunal. The School Tribunal, by an interim order, protected the Petitioner’s employment as an assistant teacher. During the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner acquired the qualification of M.A. in first class. 7. Obviously, due to the above disputes between the Petitioner and the teachers who had complained against him, the Petitioner submitted his resignation on 30th December, 2006 as an assistant teacher in Respondent No.2. He was thereafter employed as Headmaster in another school where he continues today. These facts were also introduced by an amendment in the appeal. 8. The school tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal. The School Tribunal, however failed to consider the fact that the order dated 14th February, 2000 which had serious consequences on the Petitioner was passed without affording him any opportunity of representing his case. The order was, therefore, void. Had the Petitioner been informed about the same in the year 2000 itself, 5 he could well have adopted a different course for himself. With the passage of time, he has been deprived of the same. He has, therefore, altered his position to his detriment. Further, the Petitioner has fairly stated that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, he will indemnify Respondents No.1 and 2 against any loss that may be caused to Respondents No.1 and 2 on his account in future. In view of the order dated 14th February, 2000, being set aside, as at present at least, there is no liability on Respondents No.1 and 2 on account of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also undertaken not to claim reinstatement with Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner’s appeal before the School Tribunal is made absolute in terms of prayers (c) and (d). The same is subject to what is stated above, including the undertakings, which are accepted. The Petitioner does not press prayers (e) and (f) and unconditionally withdraws the same. 10. Rule, accordingly, is made absolute and the Petition is disposed of.