1 wp4087.22.O.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4087 OF 2022 (Shivaji Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dewada (Khurd), thr. its President, V. A. Mogarkar and another Vs. Ku. Kalpana Madhukar Wadhai and others) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar’s Orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Apurv De, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. R. S. Kurekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. H. D. Dubey, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4/State. CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE: 30 th JUNE, 2025. 1. This is a case wherein the School Tribunal completely forgets the essence of the law which requires that any statement on oath by way of evidence/ examination-in-chief is subjected to the cross-examination by the other side before acceptance thereof. This principle is given go by only for the reason that the Advocate filed the pursis that he is ready to finally argue the matter. 2. Perusal of the record indicates that the respondent/appellant before the School Tribunal has come with a specific case that her appointment has been approved by the Tribal Development Department on 13.02.2015. There is a written statement filed by this Department claiming that this approval is bogus. Similarly the written statement filed by the petitioner/management stating that there is no approval granted by the Department. In such 2 wp4087.22.O.odt circumstances when a specific statement is made in the appeal and the appeal memo was part of the affidavit of examination-in-chief, no Court could have rejected request for cross-examination of the appellant. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that wherever disputed question of fact arises before the School Tribunal, such disputed question of fact is to be proved and merely because the proceeding is nomenclated as appeal, there is no bar/embargo to the tribunal from recording evidence and in fact examination-in-chief is allowed to be filed. 4. The fact that the tribunal has permitted filing of affidavit of examination-in-chief, itself shows that the Tribunal concedes to the aforestated position of law. Then what remains is the fact as to whether merely on the basis of pursis filed by the Advocate that he is ready to finally argue the matter, cross-examination can be denied to the other side. A candid answer to this is in negative. Even if it is assumed that the pursis is filed by the Advocate under a wrong conception or by mistake, it was the duty of the Tribunal to consider as to the disputed question of fact in the case in hand, and when it is so involved in the proceeding, basic rule of evidence cannot be ignored. The school Tribunal has completely ignored this position of law. Needless to say that if it is found that the order of approval dated 13.02.2015 is found to be bogus document, it has a direct impact/consequence on the decision of the appeal. Hence, the impugned order cannot sustain. 3 wp4087.22.O.odt 5. Consequently, application Exh.18 stands allowed. 6. It is expected that the School Tribunal decide the appeal bearing No.STC 079/2021 expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) NSN