Case Note & Summary
These two writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought quashing of orders passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal No. 1 of 2005 and Appeal No. 2 of 2005. The petitioners, Prithviraj S. Singh (Senior Clerk) and Shivadatta R. Singh (Head Clerk), were employees of Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya (Hindi High School) and Junior College, a private recognized aided school run by a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioners challenged their termination and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits against the school management and education authorities. The background involved long-standing factional disputes within the school's managing committee, including conflicts over the appointment and authority of the Head Master. The petitioners had earlier faced complaints of misappropriation, with an enquiry conducted by the education department that reportedly found no substance. A charge-sheet was served on one of the petitioners in September 2004. The School Tribunal dismissed their appeals, leading to the present writ petitions. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment in April 2016, pronouncing its decision on 17 June 2016. The judgment text provided is incomplete, ending before the court's reasoning and final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders of the School Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of 2005 were liable to be quashed and the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 53
Writ Petition No. 2506 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 2507 of 2006
S.C. Naidu for the petitioners; Surel Shah for respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7; U.S. Upadhyay, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 in WP 2506/2006; J.S. Saluja, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 in WP 2507/2006
Prithviraj S. Singh, Shivadatta R. Singh
The Secretary, School Education Department, State of Maharashtra; The Deputy Director of Education, Greater Mumbai; The Educational Inspector, Greater Mumbai (N.Z.); Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya [Hindi High School] Sanchalak Samiti; Surendra Kumar Agarwal; Uday Pratap Singh; Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya [Hindi High School] & Jr. College; Shri A.K.Singh (in WP 2506/2006), Shri Vinod Kumar Singh (in WP 2507/2006)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash orders of the School Tribunal and seeking reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of School Tribunal orders in Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of 2005 and directions for reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, employees of a private aided school, challenged termination and sought reinstatement after the School Tribunal dismissed their appeals.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal, Mumbai, dismissed Appeal No. 1 of 2005 and Appeal No. 2 of 2005, which were filed by the petitioners.
Issues
Whether the orders of the School Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of 2005 were liable to be quashed, and whether the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Judgment Excerpts
By these two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari, for quashing the two separate orders passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 1 of 2005 and Appeal No.2 of 2005 filed by the petitioners respectively and praying for an order and directions against the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with all full back wages and consequential benefits.
Procedural History
The petitioners, employees of Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya, filed appeals (Nos. 1 and 2 of 2005) before the School Tribunal, Mumbai, challenging their termination. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The petitioners then filed Writ Petition Nos. 2506 and 2507 of 2006 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 29 April 2016, pronouncing the decision on 17 June 2016. The judgment text is incomplete and does not reveal the final outcome.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978:
- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950:
