Judgment WP-2902-2012 J..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2902 OF 2012 PETITIONER 1) Ku. Vimal Maroti Dudhalkar, Aged 49 years, Occupation – Nil, R/O. At Indira Gandhi Nagar, Ward No.10, Rajura, Dist- Chandrapur ... VERSUS… RESPONDENTS 1) Muk Badhir Shaikshanik Audyogik Prashikshan Sanstha, Chandrapur, through its Secretary, Shri Vishwasrao Lahamge, Mahakali Mandir, Chandrapur. 2) The Headmaster, Muk Badhir Vidyalaya, Bye- Pass Road, Chandrapur. 3) The Social Welfare Officer, (Gat-A) Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. 4) The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. D.V. Sapkal, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4/State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . DATE : 31/08/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sapkal, AGP for respondent Nos.3 and 4/State. Pvf 2026:BHC-NAG:11499 Judgment WP-2902-2012 J..odt 2 2. At the outset, it would be necessary to point out that this Court has taken-up this matter on 10.07.2026. On that day, learned counsel for the respondent stated that as the Managing Committee of the Trust being changed, he would take necessary instructions and advance arguments in the matter. This Court made it clear on the very same day that as the matter being an old matter, he should take positive instructions otherwise, this Court will proceed to decide the writ petition on its own merits. 3. Thereafter, on 17.08.2026, this matter was listed before this Court. On that day, none appeared on behalf of the respondent-Management. Thereafter, this Court after recording the submissions of the petitioner, adjourned the matter to grant one more opportunity to the respondent-Management so that they can appear in the present matter. Today again, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent-Management. Hence, this Court is constrained to proceed and decide the present matter on its own merits. 4. In the present petition, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur, in Appeal No.STC-06/2004, by which, on a preliminary issue, the appeal filed by the petitioner-employee came to Pvf Judgment WP-2902-2012 J..odt 3 be dismissed. The said judgment and order is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner-employee by way of instant petition before this Court. 5. In the present case, the submission of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the year 1987 as a Caretaker and continued his services on the same post for a period of four years. On 17.01.2001, his services were transferred to respondent No.2-School. After the transfer of his service to respondent No.2-School, his proposal for approval of the said transfer was forwarded to the Social Welfare Department. The Authority, namely, Social Welfare Officer, duly approved the said transfer by his order dated 17.01.2001. 6. It is his further submission that due to the non-adherence of the basic norms, the Social Welfare Department, by its order dated 07.10.2003, was pleased to de-recognize the respondent No.2-School. At the time of the de-recognization of respondent No.2-School, as per the normal practice, if the employees are not responsible for such de-recognition, then they are declared as surplus and to be absorbed in any other School. However, in the present matter, without declaring the petitioner as surplus, his services were terminated. In this background, Pvf Judgment WP-2902-2012 J..odt 4 the petitioner approached before the learned School Tribunal to challenge the said termination order. 7. The learned School Tribunal while deciding the appeal framed preliminary issue as directed by this Court in the case of Anna Manikrao Pethe Vs. School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Amravati and Others reported in 1997(3) Mh.L.J. 697, (i) whether the respondent No.2-School was recognised at the time of appointment of petitioner; (ii) whether the appointment of petitioner was made as per Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short “MEPS Act”). 8. The learned Tribunal while deciding preliminary issues, dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner-employee was not made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act, without going into the facts under which the termination order was issued. Furthermore, its no one case before the learned Tribunal that appointment of petitioner is illegal and on that count his services were terminated. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that the circumstances of the present case are altogether different and that his grievance was also Pvf Judgment WP-2902-2012 J..odt 5 required to be considered, because his claim was that due to de-recognition of the School, he should have been declared as surplus and not terminated. But, this material submission was not dealt with by the learned Tribunal in the matter. 10. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Sadhana Janardhan Jadhav Vs. Pratibha Patil Mahia Mahamandal and Others reported in 2013(2) Mh.L.J. 484, wherein it was held that the learned Tribunal should not frame the preliminary issue mechanically in the first place and such an issue should be only framed only if it arises and is properly substantiated in the pleading of the parties to the appeal. The relevant paragraph 19 of the judgment is reproduced as follows :- “19. We do not find any reason why the same tenet of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in case of labour disputes majority of which are 'service matters' should also not apply in relation to 'service-matters' of all employees of private schools who institute appeals before the specially created 'School Tribunal' under MEPS Act, 1977. We, therefore, hold in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court that the preliminary issue as to whether the appointment of the appellant is made in accordance with section 5 of the MEPS Act and the Rules thereunder, should not be framed mechanically in the first place and should be framed only if it arises and is properly substantiated in the pleadings of the parties to the appeal and further at that the School Tribunal should decide all the issues at the same Pvf Judgment WP-2902-2012 J..odt 6 time without trying any or some of them as preliminary issues.” 11. In the present case, from the record, nowhere shows that the Management has taken the stand that appointment of petitioner was is in violation of Section 5 of the MEPS Act. So also, the issue was not cropped up before the learned Tribunal. Rather the issue was whether after the de-recognition of the School, his services could be terminated or whether he could be declared as surplus. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has committed an error by dismissing the appeal on preliminary issue. 12. In my opinion the learned Tribunal ought to have decided the appeal on its own merits by considering all the issues involved in the appeal and by considering the rival submissions made by the parties before it. However it seems that the rival submissions of the parties were not considered by the learned Tribunal and mainly on the ground that the appointment of the appellant therein was not made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act, had dismissed the appeal. Hence, the impugned order does not survive and is required to be quashed and set- aside. Accordingly, following order is passed :- O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition No.2902 of 2012 is allowed. Pvf Judgment WP-2902-2012 J..odt 7 (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur, in Appeal No.STC/06/2004, is hereby quashed and set-aside. (iii) The proceedings bearing Appeal No.STC/06/2004 be restored to the file of the School Tribunal, Chandrapur. (iv) The parties are directed to appear before the School Tribunal, Chandrapur, on 21.09.2026. (v) Petitioner is directed to serve this order to the respondent-Management before 21.09.2026 and file acknowledgment of same before the School Tribunal, Chandrapur, on 21.09.2026. (vi) The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur, shall endeavour to decide the appeal on its own merits on the basis of rival submissions of the parties, at the earliest possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . ) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁 Pvf