K.R. Dakhane Adivasi Vikas ... vs The Education Officer, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7938 Bom

                                                            1                         49.WP.6665-2019.odt




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

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2019
   ( K.R. Dakhane Adivasi Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, Murmgaon, Thr. Its
                            Secretary & Anr.
                                   Vs.
  The Education Officer, (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli & Anr. )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                           Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                                  Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.1/State.
                                  Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.



                                  CORAM:       AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 17th AUGUST, 2022.

Heard Mr. Shende learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Patil, learned AGP for the respondent No.1/State and Mr. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The petition challenges the judgment of the learned School Tribunal dated 06.09.2019, whereby the termination of the respondent No.2, by the communication dated 09.11.2016 (page 97), has been quashed and set aside. Mr. Shende learned counsel for the petitioners, does not dispute the language of the order of termination dated 09.11.2016.

3. A perusal of the order dated 09.11.2016, which is styled as a notice merely states, that since 2 49.WP.6665-2019.odt

certain documents were called from the respondent No. 2 and they have not been submitted by him, which indicates non cooperation, and therefore, his services were terminated with effect from 09.11.2016 itself. It is a trite position of law, that termination can be only on the grounds as mentioned in Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation (for short "M.E.P.S.") Act 1977 and Rules 1981, in case there is no enquiry, which is the case in the present matter and admittedly the reason for termination as spelt out in the order dated 09.11.2016, does not fall within any of the contingencies provided for in Rule 28 of the M.E.P.S. Rules. That being the position, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal. The petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

4. Insofar as, the grievance raised by Mr. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, that the judgment of the School Tribunal has not been complied within the time frame stipulated therein, it is expected that now since the petition has been dismissed, there shall be compliance within the time frame as indicated in the impugned judgment which period would start from today.

Signed By:SHRIKANT DAMODHAR BHIMTE JUDGE Signing Date:18.08.2022 19:08 SD. Bhimte