Bombay High CourtWP/2142/2017dismissedrule discharged

The Shree Samarth New Education Society, Gondia And Others v. Mahendrakumar S/O Lekhramsingh Baghele And Another

2019-01-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp2142.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2142/2017 The Shree Samarth New Education Society & ors. ..VS..

Mahendrakumar S/o Lekharamsingh Baghele & anr. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 08/01/2019 None appears for the petitioners.

Heard Shri R.K. Borkar, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 and Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for the respondent no. 2.

The petitioners - management have filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the School Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 is allowed, order (oral) of termination of the services of the respondent no. 1 - employee is quashed and the management is directed to reinstate him with continuity of service and to pay backwages.

The Tribunal has recorded that the respondent no. 1 - employee has proved that he was appointed after following the procedure prescribed by Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977, he continued in the service for three years as Shikshan Sewak and then his services were

2 wp2142.17 terminated without conducting an enquiry and in breach of the Rules 28, 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Before the Tribunal, the management has not appeared and has not opposed the claim of the respondent no. 1 - employee. Before this Court also, the management has not been able to point out that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are without any basis and unsustainable. The learned advocate for the respondent no. 1 - employee has submitted that after the appeal is allowed, the respondent no. 1 - employee is reinstated and the proposal seeking approval to his appointment is forwarded.

In the above facts, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. It is clarified that the respondent no. 2 - Education Officer is not bound to grant approval to the appointment/continuation of the respondent no. 1 - employee and the proposal sent by the petitioners - management shall be considered on its merit.

JUDGE Ansari