Writ Petition No.3335/2006 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3335 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13344 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6188 OF 2023 1. Matoshri Anusaya Mata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sahyog Nagar, Nanded, Through its Secretary, Shri Shankar s/o Maruti Gitte, Age 56 years, Ocu. Service, R/o Nanded, District Nanded. 2. The Head Master, Rajiv Gandhi Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nichpur, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded .... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Balaji s/o Reshmaji Garje Age: 36 years, Occu: Service, R/o Talechiwadi, Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 3. The Deputy Director of Education Latur Division, Latur .... RESPONDENTS ….. Mr. Kalyan Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioners Mr. B.K. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. B.V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for respondents No.2 and 3 ….. 2026:BHC-AUG:35061 Writ Petition No.3335/2006 -: 2 :- CORAM: SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 27th JULY, 2026 J U D G M E N T :- 1. The petitioners raise challenge to the judgment and order dated 05.10.2005 rendered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No.134/2003, setting aside the oral termination of Respondent No. 1, ordered his reinstatement and granted full back wages. 2. The Respondent No.1 was working with the petitioners for a period of about nine years at Rajiv Gandhi Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nichpur. To upgrade his qualifications, Respondent No.1 pursued further studies and completed the degree in April 2003. Upon completing the course, when Respondent No.1 approached the management to resume duties, however, was not permitted to sign the muster roll. 3. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.1 approached the School Tribunal challenging oral termination, the petitioner management contended that the respondent was a temporary teacher whose appointment was never approved and had voluntarily abandoned the services by remaining absent. The School Tribunal held that the appointment of Respondent No.1 was Writ Petition No.3335/2006 -: 3 :- against a clear and permanent vacancy and that his services were terminated illegally, directing reinstatement with back wages. Being aggrieved, petitioners approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, untrained teacher has no right to continue in service, as such appointments are on a year-to-year basis. The respondent No.1 accepted that he was not allowed to sign the muster roll from June 2002, as such, the appeal filed in 2003 is barred by limitation. The counsel for petitioners further submits that, Respondent No.1 suppressed facts and fabricated a Hami-Patra regarding B.Ed. sponsorship and that the Tribunal erroneously granted full back wages. 5. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 supported the order under challenge, submitting that a continuous service of nine years indicates the presence of a permanent vacancy. It is submitted that the respondent did not abandon the duties but was prosecuting his B.Ed. Course based on the management's assurance to continue in service. The learned counsel further submits that, the cause of action for oral termination from April 2003. As such, the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the order under challenge. 6. Upon considering the rival submissions of litigating Writ Petition No.3335/2006 -: 4 :- sides and perusing the material on record, the contention of the management regarding voluntary abandonment does not deserve to be accepted. In view of the fact that Respondent No.1 served continuously for nine long years disproves the petitioners' claim that this was a routine temporary arrangement and the School Tribunal rightly concluded that the appointment was against a clear and permanent vacancy. 7. Furthermore, the cause of action accrued in April 2003 when Respondent No.1 upon acquiring B.Ed. qualification was prevented from resuming the duties. The appeal was presented thereafter and the management cannot claim contrary to justify claim of oral termination. The technical grounds raised regarding the Hami-Patra does not warrant consideration. Since the termination was contrary to statutory provisions, the School Tribunal, therefore, was within its jurisdiction justified to grant full back-wages to restore the employee to his rightful position. 8. Apart from the reasons stated above, it is noted that, while this Court previously granted relief, it declined the interim relief of reinstatement and confined the relief to the payment of full back wages until the disposal of the petition. Despite this, the petitioner defied the orders by neither reinstating the respondent- employee nor complying with the directions. Consequently, the employee moved an application, upon which, this Court, by an Writ Petition No.3335/2006 -: 5 :- order dated 14.10.2009, directed the petitioner to take steps to reinstate the respondent within two months. 9. The petitioner's continued non-compliance is evident from subsequent orders. A perusal of the record shows that directions passed by this Court to forward the employee's service details and records to the office of the Education Officer were also ignored for a considerable period. Given this persistent non- compliance, this Court was compelled to pass an order directing the petitioner to show cause as to why contempt proceedings for disobedience of Court orders should not be initiated. Thus, the petitioner's willful conduct of non-compliance disentitles them from claiming any relief. The non-compliance on the part of the petitioner with regard to the orders passed by this Court is concerned, same disentitles the petitioner to claim the relief much less the relief claimed in the petition and further apparently appears to be aimed to defer the lawful entitlement of the respondent No.1- employee, which is endorsed by the Tribunal. 10. Furthermore, following the closure of the school, the employee was absorbed into another school in the year 2014. Even during that absorption process, the Management failed to ensure strict compliance with this Court’s orders, particularly regarding the submission of the service book to the Education Department. Writ Petition No.3335/2006 -: 6 :- 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no error in the reasoned judgment and order rendered by the School Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition sans merit and does not warrant any interference. 12. The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. 13. Resultantly, pending civil applications stand disposed of. 14. Given the prolonged litigation and the hardship caused to the employee, the petitioner shall pay an amount of 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) as costs to be paid to respondent No.1 within a period of 4 weeks from today. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) fmp/-