Conference Of Churches Of Christ In Western India, Pune And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4848 OF 2015 CONFERENCE OF CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN WESTERN INDIA, PUNE AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Golewar V.P.

AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.H. Dighe ...

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

Dated: September 09, 2015 ...

PER COURT :- This Petition takes exception to the communication dated 16th April, 2015 addressed by the Education Officer, Pay and Provident Fund Squad (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahemdnagar to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, there is no provision to seek prior permission of the Respondent Authorities before terminating the services of the employee of the petitioner. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned communication that, the termination of Mrs. Surekha D. Bhalerao i.e. petitioner no.2 was without prior permission of the Respondent Authorities are not sustainable. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned

communication deserves to be set aside.

2.

On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. submits that, the reasons assigned in the impugned communication are correct, and therefore, this Court may not interfere. 3.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State. We have perused the contents of the impugned communication and also the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur. It appears that, the services of petitioner no.2 were terminated by the petitioner no.1 Management without seeking permission of the State Government. The action of petitioner no.1 to terminate the services of petitioner no.2 has been set aside by the School Tribunal, and therefore, in our opinion, petitioner no.1 should bear the consequences of its own action of termination even without intimating it to the Respondents.

4.

We do not see any reason to invoke the writ jurisdiction and to interfere in the impugned

communication. The Petition sans merits and stands rejected.

( A.M. BADAR, J. ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ...

sga