WP.12525.2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.12525 OF 2023 Atul Manik Kore, Age 36 Years, Occ. Sevak r/o. Kakramba, Tq.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad ..Petitioner VERSUS 1. President/Secretary, Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Khandala, Post. Kakaramba, Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Principal, Matoshri Trivenibai More Junior College, Kakramba, Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Regional Deputy Director, Education Office, Mahatma Gandhi Square, Latur, Dist. Latur. 4. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad ..Respondents ---- Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, AGP for respondent nos.3 and 4 ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 2026:BHC-AUG:46571 2 WP.12525.2023 PER COURT :- Heard Mr.V.D.Gunale, learned advocate for the petitioner; Mr.Santosh Jadhavar, learned advocate for respondent no.1 – School Management; and learned AGP for respondent nos.3 and 4. 2. The petitioner claimed to have been appointed by the respondent/Management on the post of Sevak way back in 2011 by due process of law. The appointment was approved by the Deputy Director of Education initially for probation period and subsequently on permanent basis. While appointment was issued in 2011 the respondent/school was identified to have been recognised on permanent non-grant basis. Subsequently, by virtue of the State policy, the status of permanent non-grant was removed and the school started receiving grant-in-aid. 3. It appears that start of receiving grant-in-aid triggered the controversy between the Management and employees who were earlier appointed on non-grant basis. The controversy resulted even into some criminal prosecution. Since the petitioner had been protesting against the school Management, he was targeted. This resulted into oral termination of the petitioner on 10.03.2023. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed Appeal under Section 9 3 WP.12525.2023 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the Tribunal at Solapur. Pursuant to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the school Management caused its appearance and defended the appeal. The school Management denied that the petitioner was ever appointed by it. It was further disputed that there was any assault by the office-bearers of School Management on the petitioner. Since the legality of the appointment itself was disputed, the respondent – school Management also disputed correctness of approval granted by the Deputy Director of Education. At the conclusion it was submitted by the school Management that since the petitioner was not at all appointed by the School Management there was no occasion even to orally terminate the petitioner/original appellant. 4. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2023, learned Member of School Tribunal disallowed the appeal. Suffice to record, the Tribunal held that the petitioner/appellant could not prove that he was appointed on the subject-matter post by due procedure of law in as much as it was held that the appointment was not legal and valid. It was also held that no case of otherwise termination on dated 10.03.2023 was made out. With the findings in negative on first two issues, the rest 4 WP.12525.2023 issues were answered against the petitioner/appellant. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/appellant – employee is before this court. 5. Mr.Gunale, learned advocate for the petitioner made endeavour to take me to the merits of the case. However, at one juncture he fairly pointed out that when the appeal was fixed for hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner/appellant before the Tribunal was not present. In the absence of learned advocate for the petitioner, Tribunal delivered the judgment. He submits that had there been some one to represent the petitioner/appellant before the School Tribunal, the fate of the appeal could have been different. He further submits that the School Tribunal tested the merit of the case only from one perspective instead of examining the matter from all points. He therefore now restricts his prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order, and to relegate the matter back to the Tribunal to decide it afresh on its own merit and without being influenced by its earlier findings. 6. Mr.Jadhavar, learned advocate for the respondent – School Management has no objection to the said proposition made by learned advocate for the petitioner. 5 WP.12525.2023 7. The Roznama of the appeal proceedings annexed at page No.156-A depicts that since 10.08.2023 the appellant’s advocate was not present to address the Tribunal. The matter was then listed on 23.08.2023, 28.08.2023 and lastly on 31.08.2023. On all three occasions, the appellant was personally present however his advocate was absent. Thus, the Tribunal seems to have examined the merit of the appeal on the basis of the documents produced before it. 8. In the light of the afore mentioned facts, the request made by Mr.Gunale, learned advocate for the petitioner appears to be a moderate one. The disputed questions of facts need to be answered by the Tribunal by giving full opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 9. In view of this, I pass the following order:- A) The Writ Petition stands partly allowed. B) The judgment and order dated 31.08.2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur is quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated back for fresh consideration on its own merits by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 6 WP.12525.2023 C) Both the parties candidly agree to appear before the School Tribunal on 12.10.2026. D) The School Tribunal shall then fix the date of hearing and hear the appeal afresh without being influenced by its earlier findings recorded in the impugned judgment and order. E) Suffice it to note, the Tribunal shall take into consideration the order passed by the Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Latur on 06.09.2023 while adjudicating the appeal. F) Both the sides candidly agree that they shall not file any other additional document before the School Tribunal, and shall argue the appeal only on the basis of the material which is already on record. G) This court in the last order has recorded the adamant approach of the office-bearers of the School Management. Even, they have not updated/instructed its own lawyer and therefore bailable warrant was issued to the Headmaster of the School who was in fact already terminated by the Management. Due to their attitude, they have not only delayed the proceedings of this Writ Petition but also put the petitioner for unnecessary expenses. Even they also brought their learned advocate into an embarrassing 7 WP.12525.2023 position. In view of this, respondent no.1 - shall deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in the Tribunal on or before appearing before the Tribunal on 12.10.2026. On such deposit, the petitioner/appellant shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP