Bombay High Court
Prakash Haribhau Jadhav vs Bhartiya Rashtriya Sikshan ... on 20 June, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 WP No. 5544/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5544 OF 2014
Prakash s/o Haribhau Jadhav
Age: 38 Yrs., occ. Service,
r/o Ujani, Tq. Ausa,
District Latur. = PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Bhartiya Rashtriya Sikshan
Sanstha, Lohara, Dist.
Osmanabad through its
2)
Secretary.
The President,
Bhartiya Rashtriya Sikshan
Sanstha, Lohara, Dist.
Osmanabad.
3) The Principal,
Netaji Subhashchandra Bose
Junior college, Lohara,
District Osmanabad.
4) The Deputy Director of
Education, Latur Division,
Latur, Tq. And Dist.Latur. = RESPONDENTS
-----
Mr.VD Salunke, Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr.VR Dhorde, Adv. For Resp.Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.UH Bhogle, AGP for Respondent No.4.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
20 th
June,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith with consent of the learned Counsel
appearing for the respective parties.
2) Order dated 27th March, 2014 passed by
the School Tribunal, Solapur (for short, the
Tribunal) in Appeal No.34/2013, is questioned in
the present petition by the appellant, who had
filed the appeal before the School Tribunal. The
petitioner had filed the aforesaid appeal,
praying for setting aside the order of oral
termination by the present respondents and
consequently, for his reinstatement with
continuity and back wages.
3) It was the contention of the present
petitioner that he was duly appointed in the
respondent school w.e.f. 4.7.2007 and further
that his appointment was also duly approved by
the Education Officer on the period of probation.
It was alleged by the petitioner that though he
was working with the respondent school till the
year 2012, he was not paid his salaries from the
year 2009 and from 2012 he was not allowed to
sign the Muster Roll and in 2013, he was
prevented from attending the school by oral
instructions. In the circumstances, the
petitioner filed the aforesaid appeal before the
School Tribunal.
4) Before the School Tribunal, it was the
contention of the present respondents/management
that the petitioner himself stopped from
attending the school, which resulted in reducing
the strength of the students of music subject and
ultimately the post of Music Teacher was
abolished. The respondent management has denied
all the allegations raised by the petitioner in
regard to his oral termination.
5) After having heard the learned Counsel
appearing for the respective parties and on
perusal of the impugned judgment, it is revealed
that only on one ground that the appellant failed
in producing on record the original appointment
order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. In
fact, there was no dispute in regard to the
appointment of the appellant and the respondents
themselves have admitted the said fact in their
say filed before the School Tribunal. There was
further no dispute that the approval was also
accorded to the appointment of the appellant on
the post of Music Teacher w.e.f. 4.7.2007 on
probation. Further it was the case of the
management itself that the appellant was
appointed after following due process of law. The
allegation of the appellant was that his services
were terminated by oral orders. As against it,
it was the contention of the respondent
management that the appellant himself remained
absent from duties and his unauthorized absence
resulted in reducing the strength of the students
opting for the subject of Music. It was further
contention of the management that ultimately, the
post of Music Teacher was abolished in the
staffing pattern for want of students. Thus, the
issues, which were required to be dealt with by
the Tribunal were, - Whether the appellant proves
his allegation of oral termination and whether
the management establishes its contention that
the appellant voluntarily remained absent and
consequently, the post of Music Teacher came to
be abolished. The Tribunal has not addressed the
aforesaid issues while deciding the appeal before
it.
6)
In the above circumstances, only option
before me is to remit back the matter to the
School Tribunal for its decision afresh by taking
into account all the objections raised in the
memo of appeal by the appellant and the defences
raised by the respondent management in reply to
the said objections. Hence, the following order,
-
ORDER
i) The order dated 27th March, 2014
passed by the School Tribunal, Solapur
in Appeal No.34/2013, is quashed and set
aside;
ii) The matter is remitted back to
the School Tribunal, Solapur for
deciding the aforesaid appeal afresh,
taking into account the observations
made, as aforesaid, in the present
judgment, by providing due opportunities
to the parties to the appeal, as
expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of six months from
today.
iii) The writ petition stands
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending Civil Application, if any,
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P.R.BORA,J.)
bdv/
