Bombay High Court
Ramesh Gangaram Khairnar vs Songir Vidya Prasarak Mandal & ... on 22 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2201/1996
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2201 OF 1996
Ramesh Gangaram Khairnar
At post Pimparkheda,
Taluka Shindkheda,
District Dhule. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Songir Vidya Prasarak Mandal
Songir, Tq. and Dist. Dhule.
2. N.G.Bagul High School and
Junior College, Songir,
Tq. and Dist. Dhule. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri Y.B.Bolkar
h/f Shri R.B.Raghuvanshi
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated : September 22, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. None appears for the petitioner.
2. I have considered the petition and the accompanying
documents.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by his termination dated 29.3.1994
and the dismissal of his Appeal No.32 of 1994 by the judgment of the
School Tribunal dated 15.11.1984.
WP/2201/1996
4. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by order
dated 5.8.1993 for only one academic year 1993-94. By order dated
29.3.1994, his service was terminated. He preferred Appeal No. 32 of
1994 before the School Tribunal, which was dismissed by the
impugned judgment.
5. In all six employees as like the petitioner were appointed by
the Headmaster of the respondent School. An advertisement was
published by the Headmaster in a relatively unknown news paper by
name 'Aapala Maharashtra'. Pursuant to the application of the
petitioner and similar other five persons, the Headmaster issued the
appointment order, thereby appointing them for only one academic
year on purely temporary basis. At the end of the academic year, his
service was brought to an end by order dated 29.3.1994, pursuant to
the resolution of the ad-hoc committee of the respondent /
management. The School Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of all
the six employees, including the petitioner, by the impugned order.
6. This Court has not granted any relief to the petitioner while
admitting this petition on 12.12.1994. The School Tribunal has
concluded that because there was a dispute in the management, a
ban was imposed on appointment of employee. The Headmaster
could not have issued the appointment orders when the dispute was
WP/2201/1996
pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. In Enquiry No. 8
of 1991, some persons were chosen to conduct the management. The
Headmaster had appointed the petitioner and five other persons
without any legal authority.
7. Upon considering the above and in the light of the settled law,
that such appointments cannot be sustained, I do not find that the
Tribunal has committed any error in dismissing the appeal filed by
the petitioner. This Court had also declined any interim relief to the
petitioner.
8. This petition being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
