1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8551 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8582 OF 2007 Arun Vamanrao Jadhav ..Petitioner. Vs. Shree Sant Janardan Swami Sanskar Sanstha, Shreekshetra Verul, and others .. Respondents. .... Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish S. Godbole with Mr. Satyajeet Mirajkar and Ms. Pallavi N.D. for Respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Petition 8551/07 and for Respondents 1, 2 and 5 in Writ Petition 8582/07. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondents 3 to 5 in Writ Petition 8551/07 and for Respondents 3, 4 and 6 in Writ Petition 8582/07. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 16th April, 2008. P.C. : Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 1. The Petitioner possesses the B.A and B.Ed. qualifications and is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 21st September, 2007 by which his appeals came to be rejected by the School Tribunal. Two appeals were filed before the School Tribunal; one challenging an order reducing his rank from the post 2 of Headmaster to the post of Assistant Teacher; while the second was challenging an order of termination. The case of the Petitioner is that he had joined the Second Respondent school as Headmaster on 28th June, 2000. The School was initially approved by the Education Department with effect from the academic year 2003-04. It is the case of the Petitioner that in 2004-05 the management issued to him an appointment on probation commencing from the academic year 2003-04. On 14th July, 2005 the Petitioner was transferred from the Second Respondent to a school at Mahalgaon in the Taluka of Vaijapur in the District of Aurangabad. The Petitioner was aggrieved because that according to him was an order reducing him in rank. On 21st December, 2005 the services of the Petitioner came to be terminated. 2. The management in its written statement had admitted that during the academic year 2004-05 the Petitioner was appointed on a probationary basis for a period of two years for the academic years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The case of the management is that subsequently he was appointed to hold the charge of the post of Headmaster. According to the management 3 since the services of the Petitioner were found to be unsatisfactory, he was transferred on 14th July, 2005. 3. Both the appeals were heard together and came to be dismissed by the order impugned in these proceedings. The Tribunal has held that the appointment of the Petitioner was for a fixed period from 11th June, 2004 to 30th April, 2005 and since the termination took place upon the expiry of an order which was for a fixed term, the termination was valid. On the question of his reduction in rank the Tribunal held that the Petitioner could not be appointed to the post of Headmaster because he did not fulfill the requisite qualifications of experience required by Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules 1981. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was open to the management to transfer him to some other school. The Petitioner according to the Tribunal refused to join and submitted a resignation from service. These are the reasons which weighed with the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal the Petitioner had moved an application for the production of documents. The documents of which production was sought were (i) the muster registers during the period 2000-01 to 2005-06 4 and (ii) the application submitted by the management to the Education Officer for approval and the orders passed thereon by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nashik. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the aforesaid application remained pending and was not disposed of. 5. When the Petition came up for admission before this Court an order was passed by a Learned Single Judge on 7th December, 2007 directing the Education Officer to visit the School, inspect the records like the attendance register, the salary register and other registers including the time table from June 2000 to December 2005 so as to deal with the contention of the Petitioner that he was continuously working in the School from 28th June, 2000 till he was transferred on 14th July, 2005. An affidavit has now been filed in the proceedings by the Deputy Education Officer (Secondary) of the Nashik Zilla Parishad in which it has been stated that the School was granted permission with effect from the academic year 2003-04. No proposal had been submitted to the office of the Education Officer by the management for the appointment of the Petitioner either as an Assistant Teacher or Head Master. It has been submitted that an inspection was carried out by the Deputy Education Officer (Secondary), that the record especially the pay 5 bills and attendance registers for the period 2000-04 were not found available for the enquiry. However, the Petitioner seems to have been in service as an Assistant Teacher / Head Master with effect from 2000-01 when the school was not recognized. When the Petitioner handed over charge on 2nd August, 2005, he had not handed over the record from 2000-01 to 2003-04 as part of the charge report. The affidavit states that it appears that the Petitioner resigned from service as an Assistant Teacher and as a Headmaster on 2nd August, 2005 and that his resignation was accepted by the management on 9th November, 2005. The muster register for the period June 2004 to July 2005 is annexed to the reply. So also, the staff list which bears the signature of the Education Officer, refers to the Petitioner at Sr. No. 1 ( page 86 of the paperbook) and it has been stated that he had served for a period of five years in that school. 6. The record before the Court would show that the Petitioner had during the course of the pendency of the proceedings before the School Tribunal sought production of the documentary record which would have a bearing on the merits of his appeal. Much of the material has now been produced before 6 this Court in pursuance of the interim order passed by the Court on 7th December, 2007. There would be limitations on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to reappreciate the material which has come before the Court for the first time. The interests of justice would warrant that the Tribunal which is a primary fact finding body should have the benefit of rendering a full, final and complete adjudication after considering all the relevant material on the record. In the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, this Court would not be justified in substituting its own conclusions on matters of fact for those of the Tribunal particularly in a situation where the material that has emerged before the Court has not been produced before the Tribunal during the pendency of the proceedings there. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner therefore has sought an order of remand. The request is fair and proper. In the circumstances, in order to facilitate a fresh determination by the Tribunal the impugned order dated 21st September, 2007 is quashed and set aside without the expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the rival contentions. Appeals NSK 10 of 2006 and NSK 11 of 2006 are restored to the file of the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Nashik who shall proceed to dispose of the 7 appeals after hearing the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the School Tribunal at Nashik on 5th May, 2008 on which date the Tribunal shall set down a time schedule for the early disposal of the proceedings. Both the writ petitions shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. *****