1 WP 5018.13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5018 OF 2013 Manohar s/o Sitaram Mungale, Aged 50 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, Treasurer of Lok Vikas Sanstha, Bhisi, R/o. Bhisi, Tah.Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur. .. Petitioner ..Versus.. 1. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur. 2. Sanjay s/o Tulsiram Kukare, Aged 32 years, Occ. Service, Bhisi, Tahsil-Chimur, District: Chandrapur. 3. The Head Master, Adarsha Janta Vidyalaya & Junior College, Bhisi, Tahsil-Chimur, District: Chandrapur. 4. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. .. Respondents ……………. Shri A.H. Jamal, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 4. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. …………… 2026:BHC-NAG:12718 2 WP 5018.13 CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. RESERVED ON : 21.09.2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 24.09.2026. JUDGMENT 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur in Appeal No.5/2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the Appeal filed by respondent no.2-employee by quashing and setting aside the termination order issued by the petitioner-management. 2. It is the case of respondent no.2-employee before the School Tribunal that he being qualified as B.A. in Library Science, by following due procedure of law, came to be appointed as a Librarian on 01.04.2006. After joining the services, he continuously performed his duties and regularly attended the school. However, abruptly and illegally on 14.03.2008, Vice President and Treasurer of the Managing Committee asked him not to attend the school from the next day. So also they have taken back the key of wooden cupboard in which the record of the library was lying and other personal documents of the respondent no.2. So also illegally and forcibly 3 WP 5018.13 took the charge from him by removing all the documents from the cupboard. The respondent no.2, therefore, lodged police report at Police Station, Bhisi. 3. It is further stated that after oral intimation, he received the termination order dated 28.03.2008 informing thereby that his services are terminated with effect from 31.03.2008. In view of above said factual position, the respondent no.2 has filed Appeal before the School Tribunal to challenge the oral as well as written termination on material facts and grounds stated therein. 4. The present petitioner has appeared before the School Tribunal. According to the petitioner, respondent no.2 used to remain absent in the school and, therefore, considering his work and behaviour, the present petitioner has decided to terminate the services of the respondent no.2-employee before completion of a probation period. Hence, according to the petitioner, the termination is justified. 5. In the light of submission of both the parties, learned Tribunal has recorded the finding that the appointment of the 4 WP 5018.13 respondent no.2-employee was made as per Section 5 read with Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 6. The learned Tribunal to appreciate the submission of the respondent no.2-employee that he has rendered regular work in the school, has relied upon various documents which were produced by the respondent no.2-employee and thereby concluded that the respondent no.2 was in service as a Librarian from the date of appointment. 7. The learned Tribunal in respect of submission of management about persistant absence from duty, on the basis of the muster roll from the month of April-2006 till December- 2007, recorded the finding that the name of respondent no.2 was not included in the muster roll though he has joined the services on 01.04.2006, so also recorded the finding that if the respondent no.2 was absent in the school, then the Headmaster of the school ought to have issued the show cause notice to the respondent no.2, but no such record is placed before the Tribunal. Hence, the submission of the petitioner that the respondent no.2-employee was remaining absent and, therefore, 5 WP 5018.13 his services were terminated, is not established before the School Tribunal. 8. The learned Tribunal in respect of termination order dated 28.03.2008, which is relied by the petitioner, has recorded the findings by relying upon the various judgments of this Court that while terminating the services of the probationer, it was necessary to establish on record that his work behaviour was not satisfactory and thereby his services are terminated. So also as per Rule 15 (6) performance of a probationer required to be assessed objectively during the period of his probation and record of such assessment is also required to be maintained by the management. However, no such record was made available, therefore, submission of petitioner cannot be accepted in the matter. 9. In the light of the finding of the learned Tribunal, I am satisfied that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the controversy involved in the matter and thereby quashed and set aside the termination order dated 28.03.2008 issued by the petitioner-management. 6 WP 5018.13 10. In respect of back-wages, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the controversy in a proper manner. It would be relevant to note that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase .vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, it is held that while deciding the issue of back-wages, ordinarily an employee whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back- wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed. However, in the present case, there is no averment of the respondent no.2-employee before the School Tribunal that he was not gainfully employed after the termination order till his reinstatement. Hence, the direction of the School Tribunal to the present petitioner and respondent no.3 from 01.04.2006 till the date of the judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 11. In view of above, the order passed by the School Tribunal needs to be modified to that extent. Hence, the 7 WP 5018.13 following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur in Appeal No. 5/2008 on 02.09.2011 is modified only to the extent that the directions issued to the present petitioner and respondent no.3 to pay back-wages to respondent no.2-employee from 01.04.2006 till the date of impugned judgment of Tribunal i.e. 02.09.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The rest of the order passed by the School Tribunal is hereby confirmed. (iv) The petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 24/09/2026 18:48:28