Smt. Vanita W/O Mahadeorao Pawade v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education And Sports Dept. Mumbai And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:12771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.8091 OF 2019 [Gajanan S/o Vilasrao Pawar ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra and Others] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7850 OF 2019 [Devanand S/o Kisanrao Kale ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra and Others] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8092 OF 2019 [Smt. Vanita W/o Mahadeorao Pawade ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra and Others] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7851 OF 2019 [Ravindra S/o Uttamrao Rathod ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra and Others] ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Ms S. Dashputre, Advocate for Petitioners in all petitions. Ms D. I. Charlewar, AGP for State.

Mr D. V. Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respective petitions.

CORAM

: SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

DATE : 19 th N OVEMBER , 2025 .

1.

Heard Ms. S. Dashputre, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D. I. Charlewar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents/State and Mr. D. V. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2.

In all these petitions, the petitioners employees challenge the orders dated 10.10.2019 passed in Appeal Nos.63 of 2013, 64 of 2013 and the orders dated

11.10.2019 passed in Appeal Nos.69 of 2013 and 88 of 2013 by the respondent No.5 - Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, whereby the learned School Tribunal, Amravati dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners. 3.

Ms. Dashputre, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the employees were working with the Management and that the Headmaster had issued a certificate confirming their employment. However, their services were terminated orally, which, according to the counsel, amounts to illegal oral termination. 4.

I have gone through the orders passed by the learned School Tribunal. The learned School Tribunal recorded findings that the petitioners had not placed on record copies of the advertisement or other relevant documents to prove that they had worked with the Management. Now, the petitioners have placed on record a copy of the advertisement, as well as a report by the Education Officer pointing out that although the posts were not available, the Management had issued the advertisement and filled up those posts.

5.

In view of the above, since the petitioners had earlier failed to produce the copy of the advertisement, in my opinion, the matters need to be remanded to the School Tribunal, giving an opportunity to the petitioners to place the advertisement and any other relevant record

before the Tribunal. The respondents shall also be given an opportunity to controvert the same.

6.

In view thereof, the petitions are partly allowed. The orders dated 10.10.2019 passed in Appeal Nos.63 of 2013, 64 of 2013 and the orders dated 11.10.2019 passed in Appeal Nos.69 of 2013 and 88 of 2013 by the respondent No.5 - Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, are hereby quashed and set aside.

7.

As the appeals are of the year 2013, the learned School Tribunal, Amravati, to decide the appeals within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 8.

All points raised in these petitions are kept open. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) TAMBE