1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2534 OF 2009 --- Rajasthani Education Society and others Petitioner V E R S U S Smt. Babysaroja d/o Raghunathbuwa Degloorkar and another. Respondents Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Deshpande advocate for R-1 Mr. V.S. Panpatte, advocate for R-2. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 18 TH DECEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioner is raising exception to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Latur Region, Latur dated 29.09.2008 thereby allowing the appeal presented by respondent-employee. It is the contention of the respondent-employee that she was serving as assistant teacher with the petitioner institution since the year 1984. By virtue of order issued by the Management on 28.01.2008, punishment in respect of compulsory retirement came to be imposed on her. Order issued by the management dated 28.01.2008 directing compulsory retirement of a permanent teacher was 2 subject to challenge by the respondent-employee in an appeal presented to the School Tribunal bearing No. 11/2008. The appeal was opposed by the petitioner-management on the ground that the school tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the challenge in respect of order of compulsory retirement. It is contended that appeal can be presented to the Tribunal and can be entertained in respect of the matter covered by Section 9 of the Act. It is contended that order of compulsory retirement issued by the Management cannot be said to be punishment covered by section 9 and as such appeal by the respondent-employee is incompetent. Management relied upon Government Resolution dated 09.09.1988 and 09.10.1990. Services of any permanent employee cannot be terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the law. The School Tribunal however did not find substance in the submission made by the Management and entertained the appeal. It was found by the School Tribunal that order issued by the Management directing compulsory retirement of the employee is not contemplated by 29 of M.E.P.S. Rules. Dispensing with the services of permanent employee without following procedure laid down in the Act or under the rules would obviously amounts to wrongful termination and as such while allowing appeal School Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Management directing compulsory retirement of the teacher. Order issued by 3 the School Tribunal is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2. I have perused order passed by the School Tribunal and heard the arguments advanced by respective counsels appearing for parties. 3. Rule 29 of M.E.P.S. Rules provide for minor and major penalties. Order of punishment in respect of compulsory retirement is not provided by rule 29 or any other rule. So far as resolution issued by the State Government on which heavy reliance is placed by the employer is concerned same will not be applicable in absence of any specific provision made under rules or in the Act. Similar question was considered by this Court in the matter between Namdeo Bikkad and another V/s State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 1772/1997 decided on 14 th July, 2006. This Court observed in paragraph No.3 of the judgment thus : In its resolution dated dated 09.10.1990, the State Government has clarified that the amendment to the Rules of 1981 is required for giving effect to the Government Resolution dated 09.09.1988. The Government thus accepts the position that the provision for compulsory retirement of teaching and non-teaching staff of the private aided schools can be made by the amendment in the Rules of 1981. Obviously, therefore, until the Rules of 1981 are amended on fresh rules are framed by the State Government, the procedure for compulsory retirement for teaching and non- teaching staff of the private aided schools sought to be introduced by the resolution dated 09.09.1988 cannot be made effective. This position is admitted by the State Government not 4 only in its resolution dated 09.10.1990 but also in the affidavit dated 15.06.2006. This position is also accepted by Mr. C.R. Sonwane, Assistant Government Pleader.” 4. Considering the ratio laid down in the judgment cited supra I am of the opinion that order of compulsory retirement issued by the management is not contemplated by Rules and as such said order dispensing with services of permanent employee without following due procedure, is not sustainable and School Tribunal was justified in entertaining appeal and allowing the same. School Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction while entertaining the appeal under section 9 of the Act correctly and order issued by the management is not contemplated by any of the provisions of the Act or Rules. Same is rightly treated as an order in respect of termination of the services of permanent teacher while entertaining the appeal by the School Tribunal. For the reasons set out above, no interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance. Hence stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE **** aaa/2534.09