41-J-WP-2012-25 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2012 OF 2025 1. Saraswati Dnyanwardhini Prasarak Sanstha, Near Japsare Hospital, Bus Stand Akot, Tah. Akot, Dist. - Akola through its President. 2. Bapu Jagjivanrao Varishta Prathmik Marathi Shala, Akot, Tah. Akot, District-Akola, through its Head Master. … Petitioners -vs- 1. Pavan S/o Pralhad Kale, Aged about 31 years, Occupation: Service, R/o.Aaidalapur, Post Pimpri Khurd, Tah. Akot, District - Akola. 2. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Akola District – Akola. … Respondents Shri Ram Karode, Advocate for petitioners. Shri P. A. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 8th September, 2026. Oral Judgment : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition challenges judgment and order dated 10/03/2025 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal 2026:BHC-NAG:12131 41-J-WP-2012-25 2/5 No.09/2024. The said appeal was filed by respondent No.1 herein to challenge his termination due to alleged resignation tendered by him. 3. As can be seen from the appeal memo, it was the case of the original employee i.e. respondent No.1 herein that he was forced to resign on 17/04/2023 (page 67 of the petition) and thereafter subsequent affidavit was obtained from him on 17/07/2023 on a stamp paper. The respondent-employee challenged both these actions before the School Tribunal by filing appeal as stated supra. 4. The School Tribunal after hearing the parties has partly allowed the appeal and quashed the action of the petitioners herein. It also directed reinstatement of the respondent-employee within 40 days and granted all service benefits. The said judgment is challenged in this petition by the Management. 5. I have heard Shri Ram Karode, learned counsel for the petitioner. By taking me through the record, he submits that initially respondent No.1 made a grievance on 29/03/2023 regarding omission of his name from the list of employees eligible for salary from 20% grant-in-aid. Thereafter the employee concerned voluntarily resigned on 17/04/2023 and also sworn an affidavit in that regard on 41-J-WP-2012-25 3/5 17/07/2023. He also points me out a communication dated 19/07/2023 (page 77 of the petition) by which the employee has specifically stated that he is withdrawing earlier grievance of 29/03/2023 due the fact that he has resigned from the post. Learned counsel therefore states that the School Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of enquiry and concluded that there was some overwriting in the document dated 17/04/2023 which is the initial resignation of the concerned employee. He submits that it was never the case of the respondent-employee that overwriting was done by him. It is therefore his submission that exercise undertaken by the School Tribunal is beyond the scope of enquiry and therefore liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, Shri P. A. Jibhkate, learned counsel submits that the School Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the respondent-employee. He submits that the statutory Tribunal adjudicating rights of the parties cannot ignore that there is an apparent overwriting. He therefore supports the impugned order. 7. It is a matter of record that even though it is pleaded in the memo of appeal that on the basis of resignation which was obtained, the employee concerned was not permitted to attend the school and thereafter terminated. There are no such pleadings regarding 41-J-WP-2012-25 4/5 overwriting on the said document. In my considered opinion, the School Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of enquiry. If the School Tribunal has found that there was some overwriting in the said document, it should have offered opportunity to the respondents to explain the same before reaching to the conclusion. Said exercise has not been undertaken by the School Tribunal. 8. In that view of the matter, judgment of the School Tribunal is perverse and is liable to be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the following order is passed : (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 10/03/2025 of the School Tribunal, Amravati passed in Appeal No.09/2024 is quashed and set aside. (iii) Appeal No.09/2024 is relegated to the said Tribunal for deciding it in accordance with law after granting liberty to the parties to amend the memo of appeal and written statement and after hearing them afresh. Parties are also at liberty to lead evidence in accordance with the Rules. (iv) Parties undertake to appear before the School Tribunal, Amravati 41-J-WP-2012-25 5/5 on 30/09/2026 without any formal notice in that regard. (v) Looking at the fact that the appeal is of 2024, the Tribunal is directed to decide the same within six months from 30/09/2026. 10. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 13/09/2026 11:23:09