Bombay High Court
Ku. Sangita D/O Wamanrao Bhade vs Rashtriya Yuva Udaya Sanstha, ... on 13 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp5031.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 5031 OF 2014
Ku. Sangita d/o Wamanrao Bhade,
aged about 39 years,
r/o c/o Ulhas Gajanan Kamdi,
In front of Sharda Clinic, Main Road,
Karanja (Ghadge),
District Wardha. .... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. Rashtriya Yuva Udaya Sanstha, Nagpur,
Through its President,
Smt. Aruna Chafle,
c/o Jyoti Ladies Corner, Weekly Market,
Main Road, Karanja (Ghadge),
District Wardha.
2. Late Rajiv Gandhi Memorial English School,
Karanja (Ghadge),
District Wardha.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha. .... RESPONDENTS.
....
Shri P.N. Shende Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S.D. Abhyankar Advocate for Respondent no.1.
Ms. Udeshi, AGP, for respondent no.3.
.....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 13.04.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Shri Abhyankar waives notice for respondent
wp5031.14
no. 1. None appears for respondent no. 2, although duly served.
Learned AGP waives notice for respondent no. 3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that just
like the present case, in the case of Sadhana Janardhan
Jadhav v. Pratibha Patil Mahila Maha Mandal & ors. -
2013(2) Mh.L.J. 484, the issue was whether an Industrial
Tribunal on a preliminary issue can dispose of the appeal
challenging the termination order of an employee, and the
Division Bench of this Court while deciding the issue held that an
Industrial Tribunal cannot do so. He submits that the aforesaid
case was decided on a preliminary issue regarding legality or
otherwise of the appointment of the employee in terms of
Section 5 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, which issue is also
involved in the present case.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that in
the instant case there is no appointment order and, therefore, the
ratio of the cited case of Sadhana Jadhav would have no
application to the present case.
5. Learned AGP submits that in view of the ratio laid
wp5031.14
down in Sadhana Jadhav's case, appropriate order may be
passed.
6. On going through the impugned judgment and
order, I find that there is no finding recorded by the Presiding
Officer of the School Tribunal that in this case no appointment
order at all has been issued. Rather, there is a finding that the
petitioner might have worked as a teacher, though there is no
evidence to show that she was appointed on permanent basis.
Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of learned
counsel for respondent no. 1 that the ratio in the case of
Sadhana Jadhav would have no application to the instant case.
On the contrary, the case would be squarely applicable to the
instant case and as the appeal in question has been decided by
the School Tribunal only on preliminary issues, one of which was,
as to whether or not the appointment of the appellant/petitioner
was under MEPS Act and Rules therein. The Division Bench of
this Court in such a case has held that the School Tribunal must
decide all the issues at the same time without trying some of
them as preliminary issue. Therefore, I find that the present
petition being squarely covered by the case of Sadhana Jadhav,
would be required to be sent back to the School Tribunal for
decision afresh on all the issues arising in the matter in
wp5031.14
accordance with law.
7. In the event, writ petition is allowed. The matter is
sent back to the School Tribunal for a fresh decision on all issues
arising between the parties. The matter shall be disposed of in
accordance with law within one year from the date of the order.
All the issues are kept open.
Rule made absolute in these terms. No costs.
ig JUDGE
/TA/
