( 1 ) 34 WP 15112 OF 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 34 WRIT PETITION NO. 15112 OF 2023 LAXMAN NAGORAO KHADAP VERSUS SECRETARY GRAMIN JANATA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND OTHERS ... Mr. R. K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : 24.08.2026 PER COURT :- . Being aggrieved by the order passed by the School Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Mr. R. K. Ashtekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner, taking recourse to Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 has been rejected by the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal observed that the prayers made in the application were for issuance of such orders or directions as were not executable. 3. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties for which the parties have been before this Court on more than two occasions. 2026:BHC-AUG:38788 ( 2 ) 34 WP 15112 OF 2023 The grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner is that after his termination, he filed an appeal u/s 9 of M.E.P.S. Act before the School Tribunal. However, in 1996, he unconditionally withdrew his appeal. The withdrawal of the appeal was on the premise that the Management had assured him, outside the Court, that he would be accommodated on some post. The Management did not adhere to its words and the litigation was opened. The net result of all the proceedings till date is that the proceedings filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal have been turned down, while the only hope available to the petitioner was the liberty granted by this Court to take recourse to Section 13 of the Act. Referring to the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal was under an obligation to entertain the execution petition and deal with the same on merits. 4. Mr. V. D. Gunale, learned counsel for the respondent- Management, supports the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that the issue of restoration of the appeal and the alleged agreement between the parties has already been dealt with by this Court. As such, learned counsel submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard both the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length. It is not disputed that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the ( 3 ) 34 WP 15112 OF 2023 School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act, being Appeal No.210 of 1996 was unconditionally withdrawn by him. Though the petitioner has referred to some oral agreement between the parties neither the petitioner has sought to have such agreement referred to nor the Tribunal has recorded the existence of any such agreement. It is evident that in view of the order passed by this Court, there is no occasion for restoration of the appeal. So far as the prayer seeking a direction to the School Tribunal to enforce the alleged assurance of accommodating the petitioner is concerned, in the absence of anything on record demonstrating that the parties had arrived at any such agreement, the Tribunal has rightly refused to entertain the application. 6. Section 13 of the Act reads thus : “13. Penalty to Management for failure to comply with Tribunal’s directions.— [(1)] If the Management fails, without any reasonable excuse, to comply with any direction issued by the Tribunal under section 11 or any order issued by the Director under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 4A within the period specified in such direction, or as the case may be, under sub-section (5) of section 4A or within such further period as may be allowed by the Tribunal or Director, as the case may be, the Management shall, on conviction, be punished,—” 7. The facts are very clear. There are no directions issued by the ( 4 ) 34 WP 15112 OF 2023 Tribunal or by any other authority, the non-compliance of which could attract the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. There is also no prayer seeking enforcement of any direction referable to Section 11 of the Act. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. No case is made out for calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition stands dismissed. 10. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of any other legal remedy for the same or for any other relief, as may be permissible in law. The issue of limitation shall be governed by the provisions of law. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] PRW