Bombay High Court
Sonwane Arjun Patil Bua vs Adarsha Shikshan Sanstha ... on 8 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 904.wp.2393.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2393 OF 1997
Sonwane Arjun Patil Bua,
Age : 44 years, Occupation : Nil
(Ex Assistant Teacher),
R/o village Pangri, Tq.Patoda,
District Beed.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 Adarsh Shikshan Sanstha,ig
through its Secretary,
Jaidatt Shirsagar Ex.MLA,
r/o Opposite Police Head
Quarter, Nagar Road, Beed.
2 The Head Master,
Loni High School, Loni,
Tq.Patoda, District Beed.
3 Shri Kanthale V.N.
Asstt. Teacher Loni
High School Loni,
Taluka Patoda, District Beed.
4 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Beed.
5 The Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal,
Bansilal Nagar, Aurangabad.
6 The State of Maharashtra.
Through Govt. Pleader,
High Court Bench at
Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:18:56 :::
*2* 904.wp.2393.97
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Shri M.S.Chaudhari.
AGP for Respondents 4 and 6 : Shri S.N.Kendre.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 08th December, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.05.1997
by which the School Tribunal has dismissed Appeal No.163/1995 filed by
the Petitioner.
2 This Writ Petition was admitted on 08.07.1997. However,
interim relief was not granted.
3 The Petitioner had approached the School Tribunal alleging
that though he was appointed on 01.08.1989 and he worked continuously,
the Respondent/ Management orally terminated him on 22.08.1995.
When the Respondent/ Management was without grants, the Petitioner
was appointed as a trained graduate teacher. However, as soon as they
started receiving grants in 1995, the Petitioner was orally terminated so as
to accommodate new persons.
4 The contention of the Petitioner is that after the appeal was
*3* 904.wp.2393.97
preferred before the School Tribunal, notices were issued to the
Respondents. None of them appeared and did not render any assistance to
the School Tribunal.
5 Shri Chaudhari, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, therefore,
strenuously submits that the appeal should have been allowed as the
contentions put forth by the Petitioner were not controverted and there
was no reason for the School Tribunal to disbelieve the Petitioner. He
further strenuously submits that the Education Officer also did not render
any assistance to the School Tribunal. In this backdrop, the School
Tribunal should have allowed the appeal and granted reinstatement with
continuity and full back wages.
6 Shri Chaudhari further submits that this matter can be
remanded to the School Tribunal so as to permit the Respondents to
appear in the matter and produce the documents to indicate that the
Petitioner was working from 1989 onwards.
7 The School Tribunal/ Respondent No.5 is a formal party and
hence, stands deleted from the proceedings.
8 The learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4/
*4* 904.wp.2393.97
Education Officer and Respondent No.6/ State, submits that the Petitioner
had never moved any application before the School Tribunal for seeking
production of documents.
9 Despite service on Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, none have
appeared in this matter. None had appeared before the School Tribunal.
10 I have considered the submissions of Shri Chaudhari and have
gone through the petition paper book with his assistance.
11 It is the contention of the Petitioner that he was orally
terminated on 22.08.1995. He had worked continuously for about six
years as a trained graduate teacher. However, his appointment order dated
20.07.1989 indicates that he was appointed purely on temporary basis for
one academic year 1989-1990.
12 There is nothing on record to indicate that an advertisement
was published for filling in a permanent vacant post. There is no evidence
to indicate that the selection procedure was followed. The Petitioner has
contended before the School Tribunal that the Secretary of the
Respondent/ Management demanded donation of Rs.25,000/-. Since he
was unable to pay the said donation, he was orally terminated from
*5* 904.wp.2393.97
service.
13 In this backdrop, the Petitioner could have issued a notice for
production of documents whereby those documents on which he desired
to place reliance, could have been got produced through the Respondent/
Management. As none of the Respondents appeared in the matter and the
matter proceeded ex-parte, it appears that the Petitioner merely filed an
affidavit and on the basis of the same, he prayed for reliefs set out in the
appeal.
14 It is trite law that merely because the Respondents did not
participate in the proceedings and the proceedings are being conducted
ex-parte, the Court or Tribunal cannot allow the plaint/ suit/ complaint or
appeal purely based on an affidavit filed by the claimant. The Court is not
expected to blindly rely upon the pleadings in the appeal or affidavit and
allow the appeal or suit or plaint or complaint without scrutinizing the
evidence before it.
15 The School Tribunal has observed in paragraphs 16 and 17 of
the impugned judgment that the Petitioner, besides the first appointment
order indicating his appointment on temporary basis for one academic
year, did not produce any other document to indicate that he was
*6* 904.wp.2393.97
appointed again or that he had worked continuously with the
Respondent/ Management. These observations of the School Tribunal are
based on available record.
16 Though Shri Chaudhari strenuously submits that the matter
be remanded to the School Tribunal so as to permit the litigating sides to
lead evidence or produce documents by way of evidence, I am unable to
accept the said submission for the reason that the appeal is of 1997.
Practically after 20 years, the matter cannot be remanded back only
because there is no evidence and for enabling the parties to fill up the
lacuna and lead further evidence. The writ/ supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court is not to cure the lapses on the part of the Petitioner in recording of
evidence, but is limited only to the revisional powers by which this Court
is expected to consider whether, the impugned judgment is perverse,
erroneous and causes gross injustice.
17 In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in this Writ
Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
