Bombay High Court
Namdeo S/O Gangadharrao Nagose vs Presiding Officer, School ... on 25 November, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 wp5554.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5554 OF 2015
Namdeo Gangadharrao Nagose,
aged about 55 years, Occupation
Cultivator-Secretary, Shubham Bahu-
uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Waddhamana, R/o Waddhamana,
Tah. Hingna, District Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Nagpur.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
3. Shubham Bahuudeshiya Shikshan
Sanstha, Wqaddhamana, through
its President Shri Eknath Tukaram
Pise, R/o Waddhamana, Tah.
Hingna, District Nagpur.
4. The Head Mistress, Swami Viveka-
nand Vidyalaya, Waddhamana,
Tah. Hingna, District Nagpur.
5. Ku. Pusha Bapurao Selukar,
Assistant Teacher, Swami
Vivekanand Vidyalaya, Wad-
dhamana, Tah. Hingna, District
Nagpur.
6. Ku. Nalini Damodhar Deshmukh,
aged about 44 years, Occupation
Nil, R/o Shivganga Complex, Kohale
Layout, Khadgaon Road, Wadi,
Tahsil and District Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2016 00:32:57 :::
2 wp5554.15
....
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.M. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1
and 2.
Shri B.H. Shambharkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for the respondent No.6.
....
CORAM : PRASANNA.B.VARALE, J.
DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties. Shri A.M. Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives
notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri B.H. Shambharkar, the
learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, Shri
A.D. Mohgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.5 and Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.6.
2. A limited controversy is involved in the present petition. The
petitioner challenges the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur thereby rejecting the
application seeking intervention in the proceedings pending before the
School Tribunal i.e. Appeal No. STN/03/98.
3 wp5554.15
3. It was the submission of the applicant before the learned
Presiding Officer, School Tribunal that the applicant was an elected
Secretary of the managing committee of the institute namely Shubham
Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Waddhamana. The respondent No.1
before the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal is the respondent
No.3 in the present petition. It was submitted in the application that one
Shri Pise claiming to be the President of the Society was having only
support of one member i.e. Shri Jaipurkar in the managing committee;
whereas the other members were opposing the acts of Shri Pise claiming to
be the President. It was further submitted that Shri Pise removed the
applicant and other six members from the managing committee and
change report was submitted. There was litigation in respect of the change
report pending before the authorities such as the Joint Charity
Commissions, the learned District Judge, Nagpur and before this Court. It
was also submitted in the application that the issue of the change report
was concluded by the order of the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court
maintained the order of the learned District Judge. As a result of the order
of the learned District Judge, the schedule came to be changed/
maintained and name of the applicant and other six members were
inserted in Schedule-I. The copy of the Schedule-I was annexed along with
the application as "Annexure-1". It was submitted in the application that
the appointment of the appellant before the Tribunal was on clear
4 wp5554.15
vacancy; whereas Shri Pise, on submitting false information before the
Education Officer, sought for rejection of the approval resulting in
termination of the appellant. It was further the submission in the
application that Shri Pise had no authority to take such decision and in
spite of that fact, Shri Pise passed certain order. The applicant submitted
that it would be necessary to bring these facts before the Court as before
the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and the intervention of the
applicant would help the forum i.e. learned Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal in deciding the controversy effectively and properly. The learned
Presiding Officer, School Tribunal rejected the application.
4. Shri Meghe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal is
unsustainable on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal misdirected himself in the appreciation of the application on
merits as well as the material presented by the applicant before the
Tribunal. He further submits that an error was committed by the learned
Presiding Officer, School Tribunal in observing that no material was
presented before the Tribunal to show that the applicant was occupying
the position of the Secretary in the institute. Shri Meghe, the learned
Counsel also submits that along with the application itself the copy of the
change report was placed on record. It is also submitted in the application
that in view of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the order of the District
5 wp5554.15
Judge was maintained and by order dated 06.07.2015, the schedule came
to be amended and the name of the applicant and six other members were
inserted in Schedule-I. It is further the submission of Shri Meghe, the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that this fact along with the application
was sufficient to support the claim of the applicant but the learned
Tribunal failed to appreciate this contention and the material.
5. Shri Shambharkar, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3
and 4 makes an attempt to submit that the appointment of the appellant
was terminated in view of the refusal to the approval of the Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. He also places reliance on the
documents in support of his submission namely the communication of the
Education Officer dated 06.12.1997. The learned Counsel further submits
that in the earlier round of litigation, the order of the learned Presiding
Officer, School Tribunal was the subject matter in Writ Petition No. 2220 of
2001 and this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2220 of 2001; 4153 of 2001 and
Contempt Petition No. 216 of 2003 by judgment and order dated
19.09.2003 remitted the matter back to the Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal as the learned Presiding Officer failed to consider certain issues
such as the roster point, the vacancy for the reserved category candidates
etc. This Court then directed the learned Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal to implead one Pushpa Selukar as party respondent in Appeal No.
3/1998. Thus, it is an attempt of Shri Shambharkar, the learned Counsel
6 wp5554.15
for respondent Nos.3 and 4 to submit before this Court that the necessary
party to the proceedings was already permitted to be added by the order of
this Court and the applicant was not the necessary party. It is further
submitted that the proceeding i.e. Appeal No. 3/1998 is pending before the
School Tribunal since long and the exercise of adding the applicant as
party respondent or intervenor would only result in further delay in the
proceeding.
6.
On hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, I find
considerable merit in the submission of Shri Meghe, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner. The applicant was before the Tribunal on the backdrop
of a long drawn proceedings in respect of the members of the managing
committee. It is not in dispute that these proceedings were drawn up to
the Hon'ble Apex Court and concluded in view of the order of the Apex
Court. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal who will be deciding the
merits of the appeal on the grounds raised i.e. whether the appointment of
the appellant was proper, whether the termination was legal or otherwise
etc., and the Tribunal while considering this aspect of the matter will be
required to consider the grounds whether the resolution was passed for
termination and whether the resolution passed by the competent
managing committee.
7 wp5554.15
7. Thus, this may be one of the grounds for consideration and in
the application it was submitted that the intervention of the applicant who
is placing on record the necessary material would help the Tribunal to
adjudicate the controversy effectively and properly. The Tribunal while
rejecting the application observed that the applicant failed to produce any
document to show that the Secretary of the Society. Though the Tribunal
observed that the name of the applicant is appearing in Schedule-I dated
29.07.2015, the applicant in his application referred to the long drawn
litigation and the fraction in the managing committee i.e. the fraction lead
by Shri Pise along with the two other members and another fraction of
seven members removed by Shri Pise. Thus, the Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the necessary material in support of the claim of the
applicant was placed before the Tribunal in the form of the order of the
learned District Judge. It would not be out of place to mention here that in
somewhat identical situation an application was submitted before this
Court between the very parties who are the parties in this petition and this
Court allowed the application i.e. Civil Application No. 661 of 2016 in Writ
Petition No. 1958 of 2016.
8. Considering all these aspects, in my opinion, the order passed
by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal is unsustainable. The
same is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to intervene in
the proceedings before the School Tribunal. The apprehension of Shri
8 wp5554.15
Shambharkar, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 is justified
in submitting that as the proceedings are pending before the Tribunal
since 1998, it may take further time in deciding the appeal. The
apprehension of the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 can be
taken care of by directing the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Nagpur to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within six months from today as the appeal is pending since 1998.
9.
In the result, the petition stands disposed of. The rule is
accordingly made absolute in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
*rrg.
