1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3924/2009 (Bhartiya Sewa Acharya Edu. Society ..vs.. Ku. Tulsi S. Parate and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- DECEMBER 03, 2009 The School Tribunal, Nagpur has allowed vide its judgment dated 04/9/2009 the Appeal No. STN-19/2007 filed by present respondent No.1 holding that she was working as Peon in Sangita Uccha Prathamik School from September, 2000 to March, 2004 and has granted relief of reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. The petitioner management had contended that she was appointed in Balwadi and was not working in Sangita Uccha Prathamik School. This contention has been disbelieved. Learned Advocate Shri S.P.Kshirsagar for the petitioner management contends that when appointment order specifically reveals that she was working in Balwadi, the annual inspection of Education Department reveal that she was working in Balwadi and her joining report itself reveal that she has joined as Peon in Balwadi, the finding 2 that she was working in Sangita Uccha Prathamik School is erroneous and unsustainable. He further states that the petitioners had disclosed before the School Tribunal that the records i.e. attendance registers were not available. Learned Advocate Shri S.S.Murthy for respondent No.1 employee has stated that relevant xerox copies were produced by respondent No.1 before School Tribunal and no affidavit or reply disclosing that the attendance registers have been misplaced, was filed before the School Tribunal at any point of time. He further states that the School Tribunal had specifically called upon the management to produce the original attendance registers, but the same were not produced and in such circumstances, the School Tribunal has relied upon the xerox copies produced by the respondent No.1 on record and accepted her contention. He points out that before this Court for the first time vide Civil Application No. 2356/2009, the documents are sought to be produced and he contends that those documents are fabricated. He also invites attention to the reply filed by respondent No.1 before this Court opposing the leave for producing those documents on record. Learned Advocate Shri Kshirsagar has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 188 in the case of Sangram Vishwanath Patil ..vs... Maharashtra Education Society, 3 Udgir and others, to urge that the appointment order in such circumstances is determinative and the documents like attendance register etc. are totally relevant. In present facts, it is to be noted that the respondent No.1 is in employment of private management. She states that she was appointed as Peon in Sangita Balwadi initially from 1995 and then she was asked to work as Peon in Sangita Shivankala Vidyalaya where she worked for one year. Then she was asked to work in Sangita Prathamik Vidyala where she worked till 2003. Thereafter, she was asked to work as Peon in Sangita High School in July, 2003 and again in 2004 she was asked to work as Peon in Sangita Prathamik Vidyalaya. Her termination order dated 30/3/2004 mentions that she was appointed from 1st July, 2003 till 30th April, 2004 in Sangita Balwadi, Uccha Prathamik School. It appears that in support of her stand, she produced xerox copies of attendance registers of Sangita Uccha Prathamik Vidyalaya from September-2000 till March, 2004 and School Tribunal found that her name was mentioned in the muster roll of teachers from September, 2000 till April, 2004 and she continuously signed that muster roll as Peon. It, therefore, directed the present petitioners to produce original attendance rolls, but inspite of directions, same were not produced. Because of contrary stand taken by the petitioner and 4 respondent No.1 before this Court, the original records of School Tribunal were called for and those records nowhere disclose that petitioner had pointed out to the School Tribunal that original attendance registers were misplaced. The School Tribunal had given specific directions to the petitioner to produce those attendance registers and hence, it was obligatory on their part to respond to it by filing appropriate affidavit. A subsequent affidavit filed before this Court i.e. application for permission to file the documents on record can not be a substitute for what should have been done before the School Tribunal. It is to be noticed that show cause notice filed along with that application is also dated 01/10/2009 i.e. after School Tribunal delivered its judgment. Perusal of judgment of this Court on which learned Advocate Shri Kshirsagar has placed reliance shows that there, the question was whether employee was appointed in permanent vacancy or in leave vacancy and while answering that question, the observations have been made. Here, considering the facts that the respondent No.1 approached the School Tribunal with grievance that she was asked to work in different schools on different occasions, the attendance registers were important and the School Tribunal has rightly relied on it. When School Tribunal directed petitioner to produce the same, a responsible reply pointing out that the same are stolen, 5 misplaced etc. from custody of a particular person was essential and needed to be filed then and there only. No case is, therefore, made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. At this stage, learned Advocate Shri Kshirsagar wanted to argue on the point of back wages. I have not permitted him to raise this issue at this stage. He further requests that operation of stay to the judgment should be suspended for four weeks to enable petitioner to proceed further in the matter. Learned Advocate Shri Murthy states that if, back wages are deposited, the time as prayed for may be granted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, time of three weeks is given to the petitioners to take further appropriate steps in the matter, subject to they paying respondent No.1 an amount of Rs.25,000/- within a period of one week from today. With above directions, the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale.