Gandhi Shikshan Sanstha And Anr. vs Presiding Officer And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1290 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.S. Mohite, J.

1. Rule. Heard, by consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. Advocate for the respondents waives service.

2. These two writ petitions impugn the same order passed by Mr. V.G. Bodhankar, Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. By this impugned order the said Presiding Officer has partly allowed an Appeal No. 34/1998 filed by the present respondent No. 2 against the management and others. Of these two writ petitions, Writ Petition No. 2165/2002 has been filed by the management and the Head Master whereas Writ Petition No. 3415/2002 has been filed by the teacher. The facts indicate that by order dated 28-12-1996, the concerned teacher their was appointed on the post of Physical Training Teacher (Asstt.). A glance at a typed copy of the order indicates that the original appointment was shown to be of a temporary nature from 1-1-1997, for the probationary period which was specified as two years. The typed copy of the order further indicates that the appointment was on leave vacancy/deputation vacancy.

3. By a letter dated 7-4-1998, the services of Shri Sonone came to be terminated at the end of session. The termination order came to be challenged by Shri Sonone by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal, Amravati. The appeal has been partly allowed by the impugned order passed on 16-5-2002.

4. A glance at the order indicates that the Presiding Officer has proceeded on the basis of a finding dated 18-11-1999 passed by his predecessor holding that the appointment of Shri Sonone was illegal. That finding was given at an interim stage when the application for interim relief was under consideration. Needless to say that the Presiding Officer ought to have given an independent reasoned finding at the final stage. I find that there is no reason whatsoever has been given as to why the Presiding Officer concluded that the appointment of the appellant was illegal.

5. There is also a finding recorded by the School Tribunal that approval for the teacher was obtained by manipulation and therefore, it can be inferred that the teacher has not come to the Court with clean hands. There is no reason whatsoever given as to why it appears that the approval to appellant was obtained by manipulation. The Presiding Officer should have borne in mind that making such a statement that the teacher had obtained the approval by manipulation was a very serious nature and he should have given detailed and cogent reasons for coming to such conclusion. Normally speaking, the approval is sought for by the management and is granted by a Government Officer. A teacher in usual course has no role to play in obtaining such approval. In such a situation, it would have been proper for the Presiding Officer to disclose his mind as to why he has came to such a conclusion instead of making a cryptic observation suggesting that the teacher had manipulated the grant of approval in his favour.

6. It further appears that while allowing the appeal partly, the Presiding Officer has given directions for consideration of appointment of the appellant in a subsequent vacancy which is clearly beyond his powers. There is no finding whatsoever about the legality or illegality of the termination order.

7. I find that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and it deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the circumstance, both writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No. 34/1998 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the School Tribunal, Amravati for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. Since the matter is pending since 1998, the hearing of the appeal is expedited.

8. In the result, Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.