Ashta Shikshan Sanstha Through ... vs Shriniwas Shivappa Allishe And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4136 Bom

                                          1




                                                                            
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                    
                            WRIT PETITION NO.5569 OF 2016

    1.     Ashta Shikshan Sanstha,
           Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara,




                                                   
           Dist.Osmanabad,
           Through its Secretary,
           Subhash Karbasappa Tadkale,
           Age-61 years, Occu-Agriculturist




                                         
           and legal practitioner,
           r/o Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara,
           Dist.Osmanabad     
    2.     The Head Master,
           Ashta High School,
                             
           Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara,
           Dist.Osmanabad                                --       PETITIONERS

                    VERSUS
      


    1.     Pradeep Baburao Dede,
           Age-35 years, Occu-Service as Peon,
   



           R/o Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara,
           Dist.Osmanabad,

    2.     The Education Officer (Secondary),





           Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad                     --       RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5570 OF 2016

1. Ashta Shikshan Sanstha,

Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara, Dist.Osmanabad, Through its Secretary, Subhash Karbasappa Tadkale, Age-61 years, Occu-Agriculturist and legal practitioner, r/o Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara, Dist.Osmanabad

khs/JULY 2016/5569-d

2. The Head Master, Ashta High School,

Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara, Dist.Osmanabad -- PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. Ganesh Sambhaji Gite, Age-25 years, Occu-Service, R/o Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara, Dist.Osmanabad,

2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad ig -- RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5571 OF 2016

1. Ashta Shikshan Sanstha, Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara, Dist.Osmanabad, Through its Secretary,

Subhash Karbasappa Tadkale, Age-61 years, Occu-Agriculturist

and legal practitioner, r/o Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara, Dist.Osmanabad

2. The Head Master, Ashta High School, Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara, Dist.Osmanabad -- PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. Shriniwas Shivappa Allishe, Age-24 years, Occu-Service, R/o Ashta Kasar, Tal.Lohara, Dist.Osmanabad,

2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad -- RESPONDENTS

khs/JULY 2016/5569-d

Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.G.Borade, AGP for respondent No.2.

Mr.A.N.Sabnis h/f Mr.V.G.Kodale, Advocate for respondent No.1.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 26/07/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner/Educational Institution has challenged the

impugned judgments of the School Tribunal dated 31/03/2016 in

Appeal No.46/2015, 1/4/2016 in Appeal No.47/2015 and 31/03/2016 in

Appeal No.44/2015.

3. It is categorically stated by the petitioners that in the light of the

pending litigation as regards the elections and change reports of the

petitioner/Society, the present Secretary is petitioner No.1 and the

present Head Master of the School is petitioner No.2. It is based on the

said categoric statement that I have entertained these 3 petitions. It

needs mention that one of the Members of the petitioner/Educational

Trust, who had filed WP No.6892/2016, 6893/2016 and 6894/2016,

has withdrawn the said petitions on instructions.

khs/JULY 2016/5569-d

4. The petitioner/society and the Head Master have challenged the

impugned judgments only to the extent of the direction of the School

Tribunal at clause 3 in the operative part of the impugned judgments,

by which the petitioner society is directed to pay full back wages to the

original appellants who have succeeded before the Tribunal.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as the learned

Advocate for respondent No.1/Employee have jointly submitted that the

appointment of these employees was strictly in accordance with the

Rules and the MEPS Act.

6. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 / Education

Officer (Secondary) points out that a specific reply was filed by his

Department before the Tribunal contending that there were certain

lacunas in the appointments of the respondents/employees. He,

however, submits in the light of the impugned judgments that the

Tribunal has concluded that these appointments cannot be said to be

illegal and the said appointments are in tune with the provisions of the

Act and the Rules applicable. He further submits that the Education

Officer (Secondary) has not preferred any challenge to the impugned

judgments on the ground that his objections to the appointments of the

appellants has been set aside by the Tribunal.

khs/JULY 2016/5569-d

7. Mr.Gunale, learned Advocate for the petitioners in all these

matters submits that there were advertisements for filling in the

respective posts which are now occupied by the respondents/

employees. There was a selection to the said posts. Those employees,

who were selected by the Committee, were appointed by passing a

specific resolution. They have been appointed on probation. They have

presently completed their probation periods. The roaster that was

applicable with regard to the reservations was also followed and the

staffing pattern was fully complied with. It is further submitted that

those employees, who have been absorbed from the surplus list under

the orders of the Education Officer, have not been disturbed by these

appointments.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner / Society running the

school is 100% grant-in-aid. It was under the directions of the

Education Officer that the respondents/employees were prevented from

signing the muster roll and therefore they had approached the School

Tribunal alleging oral termination. Their salaries are to be paid from the

salary grants. In this backdrop, the School Tribunal could not have

directed the Management to pay full back wages on the ground that the

employees have been illegally terminated by the Management. It is

conceded by the petitioners that the respondents/employees were

terminated since the Education Officer had directed the Management to

khs/JULY 2016/5569-d

dispense with their services.

9. In the light of the above and considering that the petitioner is a

grant-in-aid Institution, the contention of Mr.Gunale needs to be

accepted.

10. It needs mention that the petitioner has not challenged the

judgments of the Tribunal, to the extent of the directions to reinstate the

respondents/employees with continuity in service.

11. In the light of the above, these petitions are partly allowed only to

the extent of modifying the direction of the School Tribunal at clause 3

in the impugned judgments by which the petitioner was directed to pay

full back wages of these employees.

12. Consequentially, the petitioners shall now forward the proposal /

bills towards back wages of the respondents/employees to the Education

Department within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today. Respondent

No.2 / Department, upon receiving the said proposal / bills, shall

consider them in accordance with the rules applicable and after

calculating the back wages, shall pass necessary orders for the payment

of such back wages within a period of 8 weeks.

khs/JULY 2016/5569-d

13. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/JULY 2016/5569-d