Gram Vikas Samiti, Shahapur Thr. ... vs Laxmikant Ramdeo Hedau And 2 ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6326 Bom

                                                                                                             owp.1178.15
                                                                 1




                                                                                                                   
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          BENCH AT NAGPUR 
                                                 ...




                                                                                     
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1178 /2015
              Gram Vikas  Samiti, 
              Shahapur 




                                                                                    
              F/4B, Tahsil and District : Bhandara 
              Through its  Secretary 
              Darshanlal  Nandlal  Malhotra
              Aged about 50 years 
              occu: Agriculturist 




                                                                    
              R/o  Thana Petrol Pump  (Jawaharnagar)
              Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.      ig                                                       ...PETITIONER

                         v e r s u s
                                        
    1)        Laxmikant  Ramdeo hedau 
              Aged about 42 years 
              R/o Sadak Arjuni,Near Bus Stand 
              Dist. Gondia. 
       

    2)        The Presiding Officer, 
              School  Tribunal, Nagpur. 
    



    3)        The Education Officer (Pri)
              Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.                                                  ..RESPONDENTS

    ...........................................................................................................................





                         Mr.N.D.Khamborkar, Advocate  for  petitioner
                         Mr.P. V. Kaore, Advocate for respondent no.1
                         Mr. H.N.Verma, Advocate for Respondent no.3
    ............................................................................................................................





                                                         CORAM:   A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED : 25th October, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned

counsel for the parties have been heard at length by issuing Rule and making

owp.1178.15

the same returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner-Management is aggrieved by the judgment of the

School Tribunal dated 18.2.2015 passed in an Appeal filed under section 9 of

the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Regulation Act, 1977. By the said judgment, the order of termination dated

16.8.2011 has been set aside and the respondent no.1 has been directed to be

reinstated in service with continuity.

3. Shri N.D. Khamborkar, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that by the judgment dated 16.9.2014 in Writ Petition Nos.

5487/2013 and 664/2014 this Court had set aside the earlier judgment of the

School Tribunal and had remanded the proceedings for being decided afresh

in the light of observations made in paragraph 6 of the said judgment. It is

submitted that the observations made therein have not been taken into

consideration while deciding the Appeal. According to the learned counsel if

said observations would have been taken into consideration, the petitioner

would have been in a position to support the order of termination.

4. Shri P.V. Kaore, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 did not

seriously dispute the fact that the observations made in paragraph 6 of the

aforesaid judgment do not appear to have been taken into account while

deciding the Appeal. It is his grievance that his contention before the School

Tribunal with regard to breach of mandatory provisions of Rule 37 of the

Rules of 1981 has not been dealt with.

owp.1178.15

Shri H.N. Verma , the learned counsel appearing for respondent

no. 3 states that the dispute is principally between the petitioner and the

respondent no.1.

5. Having heard the respective counsel and having considered the

impugned judgment of the School Tribunal in the light of the judgment of

this Court dated 16.9.2014, I find that the observations made therein which

were required to be kept in mind, have been lost sight of while deciding the

Appeal. It was necessary for the School Tribunal to have taken into

consideration the said aspect of the matter as the services of respondent no.1

have been terminated after holding an enquiry. Hence, there is no other

option but to set aside the judgment dated 18.2.2015 passed by the learned

Presiding Officer and remand the proceedings for fresh adjudication.

6. Accordingly, the judgment dated 18.2.2015 in Appeal No. STN

69/2011 is set aside. The proceedings are remanded for fresh consideration in

the light of the observations made in paragraph 6 of the judgment of this

Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5487/2013 and 664/2014. The parties shall

appear before the School Tribunal on 21st November, 2016 and the School

Tribunal shall decide the Appeal within a period of four months from the said

date. The respective contentions of all the parties are kept open for fresh

consideration by the School Tribunal.

owp.1178.15

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms,with no order as

to costs.

JUDGE

sahare