← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1625/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Shri Kewaldas Gyaniram Tembhekar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Dept. Of Education, Mumbai And 4 Others

2016-01-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

1201wp1625.15 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION (wp) No. 1625 OF 2015 Kewaldas Gyaniram Tembhekar v.

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram Courts's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : B.P .Dharmadhikari and V.M.Deshpande, JJ.

Date : 12 th JANUARY, 2016 Heard.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has specifically pointed out the communication dated 08.4.2015 informing the Education Officer that the petitioner is not in service after 24.10.2013. Advocate Qazi disputes this. He points out that the order dated 20.6.2014 cancelling approval to the employment of petitioner from 8.11.2013 was questioned before this Court in W.P. No. 6131/13 and that writ petition was partly allowed on 25.4.2014. Thereafter, again in breach of principles of natural justice, impugned order has been passed on 20.6.2014. Advocate Qazi submits that though the petitioner is attending the service, he is not permitted to sign in regular muster. Shri Mishra appearing for respondent no. 3 and Advocate Rafique appearing for respondent no. 5 dispute this.

1201wp1625.15 It is apparent that the question as to whether the termination is correct or not can be looked into by the School Tribunal. While entertaining that exercise, the order dated 25.4.2014 passed by this Court and thereafter the correctness or otherwise of the later order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Education Officer can also be looked into.

Hence, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, we dispose of the writ petition. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE /TA/