1 WP 3419.13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2013 1) Sarvodaya Mahila Mandal, Chandrapur having its registered office at Bhagirath Bhavan, Main Road, Chandrapur, Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur, Through its working President Smt. Yashodhara Bajaj. 2) The Principal, Chandrapur Polytechnic, Chandrapur. .. Petitioners .. Versus .. 1) The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur. 2) Ku. Vandana d/o Mahadeorao Wararkar, Aged about 54 years, Occu. Service, R/o. c/o. Shri Astikrao Urkude, Plot No.36, Laxmi Nagar, Wadgaon Road, Chandrapur, Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur. 3) Shri N.R. Bokade, Technical Instructor, Chandrapur Polytechnic, Chandrapur. 4) The Deputy Director of Technical Education, Sadar, Nagpur. 5) Smt. Jaiswal, Joint Secretary, Sarvodaya Mahila Mandal, Chandrapur, C/o. Head Mistress, Nutun Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ekori Ward, Chandrapur. .. Respondents Petition dismissed against R-3 vide courts order dated 8.7.15 2026:BHC-NAG:11954 2 WP 3419.13 Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate with Shri Gursharan Singh, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms. D.V. Sapkal, AGP for Respondent/State. …………. CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 07.09.2026. JUDGMENT 1. By this present petition, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Chandrapur dated 15.12.2012 in Appeal No.STC 69/2002, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the respondent no.2 by setting aside termination order dated 19.10.2002. 2. To understand the controversy involved in the present matter, the certain facts are required to be recorded in the present case. Undisputedly, the respondent no.2 was initially appointed on 17.08.1990 as a full time ‘Technical Assistant’ in the college run by the petitioner no.1. However, she has tendered her resignation to the petitioner-management which was accepted with effect from 09.04.1992. The respondent 3 WP 3419.13 no.2, after accepting the resignation, treating it as otherwise termination, filed the Statutory Appeal before the School Tribunal bearing Appeal No.73/1992. The learned School Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 27.04.2000, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.2-employee and directed the petitioner-management to reinstate her on her former post of ‘Technical Assistant’ with full back-wages and continuity in service. The petitioner-management challenged the said judgment of the School Tribunal dated 27.04.2000 before this court in Writ Petition No.2464/2000. The said writ petition was dismissed by this court by order dated 24.07.2000. 3. The petitioner-management challenged the said judgment of the Single Bench before the Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.101/2000. The said LPA was Admitted by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 21.11.2000. In the said LPA No.101/2000, there was no interim stay granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 4. Respondent No.2, in that circumstances, filed the Contempt Petition No.189/2000 before this court against the 4 WP 3419.13 petitioner-management. In the said contempt petition, this court by order dated 13.09.2000 directed the respondent no.2 to avail the remedy available to her under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the School Tribunal. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 filed the Contempt Petition No.06/2000 before the School Tribunal. 5. In view of the contempt proceeding filed by the respondent no.2, the petitioner-management has issued the appointment order to the respondent no.2 dated 17.10.2002. The said appointment order clearly states that she is allowed to join in school as per the order of the School Tribunal dated 11.10.2002 passed in Contempt Petition, but subject to decision of pending Letters Patent Appeal No.101/2000 before the Hon’ble High Court. The respondent no.2 accepted the said appointment order along with the conditions stipulated therein and joined the services. 6. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Division Bench has decided the LPA No.101/2000 by order dated 13.07.2012 pending before this court filed by the petitioner-management. 5 WP 3419.13 In the LPA, the Division Bench of this court had set aside the judgment and order dated 24.07.2000 passed by the Single Bench in Writ Petition No.2464/2000 and judgment and order dated 27.04.2000 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.73/1992. As such, the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 against termination order dated 09.04.1992 was held dismissed. 7. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.101/2000 the status of the respondent no.2 became as a terminated employee from year 09.04.1992. The said order was not challenged before any other court and as such the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench has attended the finality in the matter. 8. In pursuance of the order of Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.101/2000, the management has terminated the services of the respondent no.2 as she was allowed to join services subject to decision of Letters Patent Appeal. The said termination order was issued with effect from 19.10.2002. 9. The respondent no.2 challenged the said termination again before the School Tribunal in Appeal No.69/2002. 6 WP 3419.13 However, the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.101/2000 decided on 13.07.1012 was not brought to the notice of the School Tribunal by both the parties. As a result, the learned School Tribunal has allowed the Appeal and thereby directed the petitioner-management to reinstate the respondent no.2 in service. 10. In the above background, the petitioner-management has filed the present petition before this court. This court by order dated 14.09.2015 granted Rule in the present matter and granted stay to the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, dated 15.12.2012. 11. Petitioner submitted that during the pendency of LPA No.101/200, Respondent No.2 was allowed to join services subject to final decision in LPA. As such, after the decision in LPA No.101/2000 decided on 13.07.2012, services of Respondent No.2 are terminated. As such, there is no illegality committed by petitioner-management in the matter. 12. The respondent no.2, however, stated that it was a separate cause of action and, therefore, the learned Tribunal 7 WP 3419.13 has rightly considered the controversy and hence, considering the observations of the learned Tribunal, this matter needs to be decided independently by this court. 13. In the present matter, it is admitted fact that after the judgment of the Single Bench, the respondent no.2 has filed the contempt proceeding before the School Tribunal. In pursuance of the same, the appointment order was issued on 17.10.2002 with a specific conditions mentioned therein. Admittedly, LPA No.101/2000 was decided subsequently i.e. on 13.07.2012. Therefore, the management, in my opinion, has rightly took a decision to terminate/relieve the present respondent no.2 from the services as her earlier termination was upheld by this court by dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 before the School Tribunal. 14. In view of this, the learned Tribunal failed to consider all these factual aspects, the observations made therein are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case involved in the matter and hence indulgence of this court is necessary in the matter. 8 WP 3419.13 15. In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. STC 69/2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is made clear that the services of the respondent no.2 shall be treated as terminated with effect from 19.04.1992. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 09/09/2026 17:48:10