Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hiraji Natthurao Bangare, was employed as an Assistant Teacher with respondents 1 and 2 from 1997 to 01.04.2003. His appointment was not approved by the Education Officer. He was terminated w.e.f. 01.04.2003, which he challenged in Appeal STC 71/2003 before the School Tribunal, Chandrapur. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on 08.02.2012, directing reinstatement with continuity and full backwages. Respondents 1 and 2 challenged this in Writ Petition 2212/2012 before the Bombay High Court. On 12.02.2015, the High Court disposed of the writ petition recording an amicable settlement. The settlement terms required the management to reinstate the petitioner on 15.02.2013 with continuity and notional increments, but the petitioner was to be paid only 50% of backwages. However, the management did not reinstate the petitioner, leading to a fresh termination. The petitioner filed another appeal (STC 04/2014) before the School Tribunal, which was dismissed on 13.02.2015. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the settlement terms and found that the management had not breached them because the petitioner's appointment was never approved by the Education Officer. The Court held that the compromise did not create a right to continue in service indefinitely, and the termination was justified. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Compromise Settlement - Res Judicata - The petitioner's service was terminated after a compromise settlement in an earlier writ petition. The School Tribunal rejected the appeal against termination. The High Court held that the compromise settlement did not bar the management from terminating the petitioner's service due to non-approval of appointment by the Education Officer. The termination was not in breach of the settlement terms. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's service after a compromise settlement in an earlier writ petition was valid, and whether the School Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal against such termination.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the School Tribunal's judgment dated 13.02.2015. The Court held that the compromise settlement did not bar the management from terminating the petitioner's service due to non-approval of appointment, and the termination was not in breach of the settlement terms.
Law Points
- Termination of service
- Compromise settlement
- Res judicata
- Approval of appointment
- School Tribunal
- Writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 128
WRIT PETITION NO.1060 OF 2015
Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for Petitioner; Shri B.B. Raipure, Advocate for Respondent 1; Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for Respondent 2; Shri A.M. Kadukar, AGP for Respondent 3
Shri Hiraji Natthurao Bangare
Dyan Prasarak Shikshan Mandal, Indira Gandhi Vidyalaya, The Education Officer (Sec.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal dismissing the appeal against termination of service.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the School Tribunal's judgment dated 13.02.2015 and to be reinstated with continuity and backwages.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was terminated from service after a compromise settlement in an earlier writ petition, and the School Tribunal rejected his appeal against the termination.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal in Appeal STC 71/2003 allowed the petitioner's appeal and directed reinstatement with continuity and full backwages. This was challenged in Writ Petition 2212/2012, which was disposed of by compromise on 12.02.2015. The petitioner was terminated again, leading to Appeal STC 04/2014, which was dismissed on 13.02.2015.
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioner's service after the compromise settlement was valid.
Whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal against termination.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the management breached the compromise settlement by terminating his service without following due process.
The respondents contended that the petitioner's appointment was never approved by the Education Officer, and the compromise did not guarantee continued employment.
Ratio Decidendi
A compromise settlement in a writ petition does not create an absolute right to continue in service if the appointment itself was not approved by the competent authority. The management is entitled to terminate service if the appointment lacks approval, and such termination does not breach the settlement terms.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is assailing the judgment dated 13.02.2015 rendered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur in Appeal STC 04/2014, by and under which the challenge to the termination from service is rejected.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner rendered service with respondents 1 and 2 from 1997 to 01.04.2003. It is further not in dispute that the proposal for obtaining the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was not forwarded by the management to the Education Officer.
Procedural History
The petitioner was terminated on 01.04.2003. He filed Appeal STC 71/2003 before the School Tribunal, which allowed the appeal on 08.02.2012. Respondents 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition 2212/2012, which was disposed of by compromise on 12.02.2015. The petitioner was terminated again, leading to Appeal STC 04/2014, which was dismissed on 13.02.2015. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
