Bombay High Court
The Secretary Karuna Shikshan Sanstha ... vs Eshwar Dnyanoba Nagargoje And Another on 13 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1648
{1} wp6270-18.doc
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6270 OF 2018
The Secretary, Karuna Shikshan Sanstha
Wadgaon (Bk) and Another PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Eshwar Dnyanoba Nagargoje and Another RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Tushar M. Tandale, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mrs. M. L. Sangit, AGP for Respondent - State
.......
[CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2026
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 17 of 2016, whereby the learned School Tribunal has partly allowed the Appeal filed by Respondent No.1.
3. Respondent No.1 herein has filed an Appeal before the School Tribunal stating therein that, Respondent No.1 possesses B.Sc. B.Ed qualification and he was eligible to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Petitioners / original {2} wp6270-18.doc Respondents No.2 and 3 before the School Tribunal, appointed Respondent No.1 / original Appellant, by following due procedure of law. After completing the probation period, Respondent No.1 attained the status of permanent employee. During the said period, Respondent No.1/ original Appellant was deputed on various training courses and was asked to do academic work. As the school was on unaided basis, the Management was bound to pay salary to Respondent No.1. Salary was not paid to Respondent No.1 / original Appellant and the Petitioner management also avoided to submit proposal of Respondent No.1 to the Education Officer. Even the Management did not prepare service book of Respondent No.1. As salary was not paid and the Respondent No.1 was discontinued from service, Respondent No.1 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2116 of 2012 and before this Court, it was mentioned that services of Respondent No.1 were terminated. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 21 st September, 2013 and liberty was granted to Respondent No.1 to approach the School Tribunal, by filing Appeal.
4. Before the School Tribunal, the Petitioners contested the Appeal by filing written statement, submitting that the documents which were submitted by Respondent No.1 before the {3} wp6270-18.doc School Tribunal, were forged one and prepared by using duplicate stamp and duplicate letter head. It was denied by the Management that Respondent No.1 was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher and, therefore question of preparing his service book did not arise and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.
5. Having gone through the record and after considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for the Petitioner, it reveals that the respondent No.1 had placed copies of relevant record before the School Tribunal, which are referred in paragraph No. 10 of the order passed by the School Tribunal. Paragraph No. 10 of the order reads as follows:
"10. The appointment of the appellant against clear, vacant and sanctioned post after following the due procedure of law is mainly disputed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In order to show the appointment of the appellant by following due procedure of law, against clear, vacant and permanent post, the appellant has relied upon the contention made by him in the appeal memo. He in addition to relied upon a number of other documents annexed with the appeal memo. The appellant in paragraph No.1 of the appeal memo specifically contended that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher as he is holding qualification as B.Sc. B.Ed. In relation to this he further claimed that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 appointed him on the post of Assistant Teacher after following the due procedure of law, but the appointment order was withheld by them.
{4} wp6270-18.doc Considering this particular stand of the appellant, it can be concluded that there is no appointment order, as such available with the appellant to show his appointment as per his case. So, I have gone through the other documents relied upon by the appellant. The material document I found in the bunch of documents relied upon by the appellant is the copy of the inspection report conducted by the Education Officer in the academic year 2009-10 (Exhibit-19/35). It is in regard to the inspection conducted on 13-11-2009. It can be seen from this copy of the inspection report that the name of the appellant form place in this inspection report in the list of teachers at Sr. No.3, with experience of three years dealing with the subject of science and environment. Next to it, is the document staffing pattern for the year 2009-10 (Exhibit-19/14). It can be seen from this copy that as per this staffing pattern there are five sanctioned posts of teachers including one post of Headmaster. If the situation of the year 2008-09 is seen then it appears that in the year 2008-09 there were 5.5 sanctioned posts. In view of the inspection carried out by the Education Department on 13-11-2009 and in view of the staffing pattern of the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 it can be safely concluded that the appointment of the appellant was made against clear, vacant and permanent post of Assistant Teacher."
6. The above documents are duly proved by Respondent No.1 by pointing out that he was appointed and he worked there and in view of section 5 (2) of the MEPS Act, he acquired the status of permanent employee as per section 5 (2) of the MEPS Act.
7. The entire record placed by both the parties is taken into consideration by the School Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the School Tribunal hold that the services of {5} wp6270-18.doc Respondent No.1 were terminated without following due procedure of law and also recorded a finding that Respondent No.1 employee was not gainfully employed anywhere during the said period. Therefore, the learned School Tribunal allowed the Appeal by setting aside the oral termination and granted 50% back wages.
8. Considering the reasons recorded above, I find that the learned School Tribunal has considered the record, which was duly proved by the employee. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the School Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE drp/wp6270-18.doc