Bombay High Court
Shri Dewaleshwar Shikshan Va Jankalyan ... vs Santosh S/O Anandrao Deshmukh And 2 ... on 20 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5715
1 wp1823.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1823/2019
1. Shri Dewaleshwar Shikshan Va Jankalyan
Sanstha, Buldana, Regd. No.F-2736, through
its President, Mangal Vidya Niketan Uccha
Prathamik Sahala, Kata Road, Shivaji Nagar,
Ward No.1, Washim, Tq. and Distt. Washim.
2. Mangal Vidya Niketan Uccha Prathmik
Shala, through its Head Master, Kata
Road, Shivaji Nagar, Ward No.1, Washim,
Tq. and Distt. Washim. ... Petitioners
(Original Appellants)
- Versus -
1. Santosh S/o Anandrao Deshmukh,
aged about 46 Yrs., Occu. Nil,
R/o At Post Tandali (Bk.), Washim,
Tq. and Distt. Washim. (Original Appellant)
2. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Washim. (Original Respondent 3)
3. Ram S/o Sambhaji Kale,
aged Major, Occu. Head Master
(Suspended), R/o at Khambala,
Tq. and Distt. Hingoli-431 513. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurabh Singha, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2.
----------------
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 13.6.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 20.6.2025.
2 wp1823.2019
JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and
order dated 16.8.2018 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati in
Appeal No.56/2016 thereby allowing the appeal challenging the
termination order dated 16.8.2016 and directed the petitioners to
reinstate the services of respondent No.1 within forty days with all
benefits of continuity in service and directed to pay full
back-wages to the appellant (respondent No.1 herein) from the
date of termination till his reinstatement.
3. The petitioner No.1 is the Education Society. The
respondent No.1 was appointed as a Shikshan Sewak on
14.2.2005. The respondent No.1 had given resignation on
21.8.2008. After hearing both the parties the respondent
No.2-Education Officer confirmed the resignation of the
3 wp1823.2019
respondent No.1. On 16.8.2013 the respondent No.1 had
challenged the resignation letter and issued legal notice and
demanded repayment. The respondent No.1 thereafter had filed
the civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction before the civil
Court which was withdrawn by him.
4. After two years of withdrawing said suit the
petitioners with the help of Headmaster i.e. respondent No.3 has
prepared the forged documents and filed the appeal before the
School Tribunal. The respondent No.3 had issued the certificate,
he i.e. respondent No.3 was suspended and he has given
admission during his enquiry about issuance of certificate due to
personal relations.
5. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the School
Tribunal was allowed. The petitioners came to know about said
judgment on 29.9.2018 and after going through the record they
came to know neither the Headmaster nor one Deshmukh who
4 wp1823.2019
was appointed as an Advocate had filed reply in the matter. The
matter before the Tribunal was proceeded ex parte and on the
basis of the documents filed by the respondent No.1 the judgment
was passed. The petitioners are challenging the said judgement
before this Court.
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has
submitted that the appeal is proceeded ex parte. They have taken
action against the Assistant Teacher Mr. V.A. Deshmukh and the
then Headmaster. The allegations are about forged documents
filed by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has not
denied that he had resigned the services and said resignation letter
bears his signature but it is his stand that it was obtained by
pressure from the petitioners. These disputed facts are not
decided by the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal has not
framed the issue in this regard. The petitioners have not got any
opportunity to contest the matter regarding this aspect.
5 wp1823.2019
7. The order to deposit 50% amount of back-wages is
complied, however, the respondent No.1 is disputing about the
amount. According to him he was working as an Assistant
Teacher and, therefore, 50% back-wages should be of Assistant
Teacher and not of Shikshan Sewak. There is difference between
the salary of Shikshan Sewak and an Assistant Teacher.
8. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has
submitted that as the issues are not framed and the petitioners
have not got an opportunity of hearing, he requested to quash and
set aside the impugned judgment and order and to remand the
matter back to the School Tribunal for deciding it afresh.
9. The learned Advocate has also agreed that disputed
question of facts are not decided and no issues to that effect are
framed. He has also fairly submitted that as the issues are not
framed the respondents are also ready to face the trial again but
has insisted that the petitioners shall comply the order passed by
6 wp1823.2019
this Court by depositing 50% amount as per the pay-scale of
Assistant Teacher.
10. Heard both sides and perused the record.
11. As the matter before the School Tribunal is proceeded
ex parte and the petitioners have not got any opportunity of
hearing to contest the matter, the issue of disputed facts arises
before this Court regarding forged documents, the petitioners
have already taken action against the persons who have given
assistance to the respondent No.1 and departmental enquiry was
conducted against those persons. It is, therefore, necessary to set
aside the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal and
remand back the matter to School Tribunal for deciding it afresh.
Hence the following order:-
(i) The impugned order passed by the School Tribunal is
quashed and set aside.
7 wp1823.2019
(ii) The matter is remanded back to the School Tribunal
for deciding the same afresh after giving an opportunity of
hearing to all the parties.
(iii) The petitioners and the respondents are directed to
appear before the Tribunal on 27.6.2025.
(iv) The Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the
appeal as early as possible and in any case within three months
from the date of receipt of this judgment and order.
(v) Rule accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/06/2025 15:44:43
