Bombay High Court
Lakhansingh S/O Nyhalsingh Padwale vs Presiding Officer, School Tribunal And ... on 3 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)BOMCR292, [2003(97)FLR606], 2003(1)MHLJ371
Author: S.A. Bobde
Bench: S.A. Bobde
JUDGMENT S.A. Bobde, J.
1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.
2. This petition is directed against an order dated 26-3-2002 passed by the School Tribunal by which the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by a single line order which reads as follows :
"Appellant is untrained. Hence appeal is dismissed."
3. The petitioner has been found to be untrained teacher who was required to be appointed on year to year basis, as observed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given no reason as to why the teacher should have been appointed on a year to year basis. Presumably, it is because of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Employees' of Private Schools Rules 1981. It would have been desirable if the Tribunal had made it explieit why it was taking the view it did. The only thing that is stated in the judgment is that the petitioner is untrained. This hardly qualifies as a judgment.
4. At this point, it would be useful to bear in mind that the Tribunal, by virtue of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is invested with the same powers as are vested in the Appellate Court. The said section reads as follows :
"10. No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claim, or any court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court."
The Appeal before the Tribunal must, therefore, be decided in accordance with Order XLI, Rules 30 and 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which read as follows :
"30. Judgment when and where pronounced.--(1) The Appellate Court, after hearing the parties or their pleaders and referring to any part of the proceedings, whether on appeal or in the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, to which reference may be considered necessary, shall pronounce judgment in open court, either at once or on some future day of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the points for determination, the decision thereon and the final order passed in the appeal are read out and it shall not be necessary for the court to read out the whole judgment, but a copy of the whole judgment shall be made available for the perusal of the parties or their pleaders immediately after the judgment is pronounced.
31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.--The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state--
(a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled,
and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the judge or by the Judges concurring therein.
The Judgment of the Tribunal must be in accordance with Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows :
"5. Court to state its decision on each issue.--In suits in which issues have been framed, the court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issues, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit."
There is no reason for the Tribunal to deviate from the well established procedure laid down by the law. In the present case, the judgment does not conform to the requirements of the provisions of law, referred to above, which are not merely procedural in nature. Reason is known to be the soul of law. In fact the term 'ratio decidendi' simply means the reason of, or for the decision. Parties who approach the Tribunal as a forum of first instance, must be able to gather the reasons for the decision from the judgment itself. Having regard to these circumstances, since the judgment of the Tribunal is cryptic and unsupportable, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.
5. However, it is clear that the petitioner has been found to be an untrained teacher. There is nothing on record to demonstrate the petitioner is a trained teacher.
6. Having regard to the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled as of right to be reinstated. Mr. Patil, learned counsel, for the petitioner states that the petitioner is already working. This position is denied by Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been working and in any case till March 2002 and even according to the respondents 2 and 3 the petitioner may be allowed to work in case he gives an undertaking that he would not claim salary if the decision goes against him. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall decide the matter expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than six months from today.