Baban Bhimrao Limkar vs Shri Shamrao Saheb Baba Patil ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3437 Bom

                                                                  2991-95 WP.doc
                                             1




                                                                          
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                               WRIT PETITION NO.2991 of 1995

              Baban S/o Bhimrao Limkar,
              aged 32 years, Occu. Service as




                                                 
              Teacher, R/o. Ansurda,
              Taluka and District Osmanabad.                    ...Petitioner

                          Versus




                                        
              1. Shri Shamrao Saheb Baba Patil
                 Vikas Mandal, Ansurda,
                             
                 Taluka and District Osmanabad,
                 through its Chairman / President,
                 Kakasaheb Raosaheb Patil,
                 aged 35 years, Occu. Agriculture,
                            
                 R/o Ansurda, Taluka and District
                 Osmanabad.
                 (Shri Samarth Raosaheb Baba Patil
                 Vikas Mandal, Ansurda, Taluka and
      

                 District Osmanabad, through its
                 Chairman / President
   



                 Kakasaheb Raosaheb Patil,
                 aged 35 years, Occu. Agriculture,
                 R/o Ansurda, Taluka and District
                 Osmanabad)





              2. The Education Officer,
                 Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.

              3. Laxman s/o Nivrutti Dalve,
                 aged 32 years, Occu. Service as
                 Teacher, R/o Ansurda, Taluka and





                 District Osmanabad.

              4. The Presiding Officer,
                 School Tribunal, Aurangabad Division,
                 Aurangabad.                                 ...Respondents
                                            ...
              Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate for Petitioner;
              Mr.S.B. Talekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
              Mr.R.J.Godbole, Advocate for Respondent No.3 (absent)




    ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:27:32 :::
                                                                               2991-95 WP.doc
                                                    2




                                                                                      
                                     CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.




                                                              
              Date of reserving the judgment   : 20th June, 2016
              Date of pronouncing the judgment : 28th June, 2016
                                        ...
              JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner has filed the present

petition, challenging the Judgment and Order dated

27.04.1994, passed by the School Tribunal at

Aurangabad in Appeal No.130/1992. The present

petitioner had filed the said appeal, which has been

dismissed by the School Tribunal, vide the impugned

order.

2) The petitioner had filed the aforesaid

appeal against his alleged oral termination by the

respondents with effect from 02.07.1992. It was the

case of the petitioner before the School Tribunal that,

while he was working as Head Master of Shakuntala

Deshmukh Prashala, Ansurda, was orally terminated

with effect from 02.07.1992. According to the

Petitioner, he was appointed to the post of Head

Master to the aforesaid School with effect from

11.06.1992 and was satisfactorily rendering his

2991-95 WP.doc

services. It was also the contention of the petitioner

before the School Tribunal that, since the persons in

the management of the School were intending to

accommodate a person in whom they have vested

interest, the services of the petitioner were orally

terminated and he was prevented from discharging

his duties. ig It was also the contention of the

petitioner that some baseless allegations were also

made against him and notices were issued to him

seeking his explanation in that regard. It was the

contention of the petitioner that, his services were

wrongfully terminated without following the

prescribed procedure and he had therefore prayed for

setting aside the said order of terminating his

services orally and for his reinstatement with

continuity of service and back wages.

3) The Respondents resisted the contentions

raised by the petitioner in the appeal by filing their

written statement. It was their contention that, the

petitioner was neither a trained teacher, nor a senior

2991-95 WP.doc

most trained teacher and hence could not have been

appointed to the post of Head Master. It was their

further contention that, the petitioner was asked to

hold an additional charge of the post of Head Master

in the leave vacancy of one Laxman Dalve during the

period of his leave, but was never appointed to the

post of Head Master. It was their further contention

that, with effect from 18.11.1991, the petitioner

himself remained absent from duties. It was their

further contention that, after 18.11.1991, petitioner

did not turn up to the school and remained

voluntarily absent without any intimation or

application. It was their further contention that, just

to bring the appeal filed by him before the School

Tribunal within the period of limitation that, he

alleged that, he was orally terminated with effect

from 02.07.1992.

4) From the discussion made by the Tribunal

in its Judgment, it reveals that, the petitioner despite

obtaining number of adjournments did not place on

2991-95 WP.doc

record the relevant documents and was not diligent in

prosecuting his appeal before the School Tribunal.

From the available material on record, the Tribunal

has recorded a conclusion that, there was no

substance in the allegations made by the Petitioner

that, his services were orally terminated with effect

from 02.07.1992 and as such dismissed the appeal.

The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present

petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5) Shri Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing

for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner was

duly qualified to be promoted to the post of Head

Master and was accordingly promoted to the said

post, but he was not allowed to discharge his duties

as Head Master or the Assistant Teacher. Learned

Counsel further submitted that, the petitioner was all

the while diligent in prosecuting his claim and that the

observations made in the impugned Judgment are

factually incorrect. Learned Counsel relied upon the

following judgments:

2991-95 WP.doc

1) Subhash Vidya Mandal & anr. Vs. Mrs. Puspalata Prabhakar Deshmukh, 2014

(4) . L.J. 323.

2) Principal, Mahavir Mahavidyalaya, Kolhapur & Anr. Vs. Deepak Ranganath & Ors., 2004 (3) ALL MR 526.

6) The learned Counsel appearing for the

respondents supported the impugned judgment and

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7) I have carefully gone through the material

on record, more particularly the memo of appeal filed

by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal, the say

filed by the respondents in appeal before the school

Tribunal and documents placed on record by the

parties.

8) On perusal of the aforesaid material, it is

apparently revealed that, the petitioner did not

substantiate the contentions in support of his

allegations raised in the memo of appeal. The

Petitioner could not prove the fact that, he was

working as Head Master of School and that his

2991-95 WP.doc

services were orally terminated. On the contrary, the

documents placed on record by the respondents show

that, Shri L.N.Dalve who was respondent No.3 in the

appeal before the School Tribunal was working as

Head Master at the School at Ansurda, and his

appointment was also approved by the Education

Officer. The material on record further shows that,

the petitioner did not place on record any material to

show that he was duly qualified to be promoted to the

post of Head Master. The material on record further

shows that, notices were issued to the petitioner for

his unauthorized absence from the school. There is

no proper explanation from the side of the petitioner

to the said objection. It is further significant to note

that, in the impugned order, the School Tribunal has

made an observation that, the petitioner has obtained

the job of primary school teacher in another private

school in June, 1993. The School Tribunal has also

further observed that, "therefore, the appellant does

not want to prosecute the appeal". The Tribunal has

also observed that, despite directions from the

2991-95 WP.doc

Tribunal, the appellant did not serve the copy of the

appeal memo on respondent No.3. In the aforesaid

circumstances, the School Tribunal has dismissed the

appeal filed by the Petitioner.

9) In the present Petition, nothing has been

brought to my notice so as to differ with the

observations made by the School Tribunal in the

impugned judgment. The fact recorded by the School

Tribunal in the impugned judgment that, the

petitioner has obtained the job as primary school

teacher in another school from June, 1993 has not

been specifically denied or disputed by the

petitioner in the petition memo. Only a vague

reference is made that the judgment and order

passed by the School Tribunal is illegal, wrong and

erroneous. Petitioner has also not placed on record

any documents showing that he was promoted to the

post of Head Master.

10) In absence of any such material placed on

record by the petitioner, it is difficult to accept the

2991-95 WP.doc

contentions raised by the petitioner in exception to

the impugned judgment. The Judgments relied upon

by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the

present case. It does not appear to me that any

interference is called for in the impugned judgment

and order. The Writ Petition is devoid of any

substance and deserves to be dismissed and is

accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances

of the case, no order as to the costs.

Rule Discharged.

( P.R.Bora ) Judge

SPR