Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sonwane Arjun Patil Bua, was appointed as an assistant teacher on 01.08.1989 by the Adarsh Shikshan Sanstha (respondent management) when the school was without grants. He worked continuously until 22.08.1995, when he was orally terminated. The petitioner alleged that the termination occurred because the management started receiving grants in 1995 and wanted to accommodate new persons. He filed Appeal No.163/1995 before the School Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on 05.05.1997. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The petitioner's advocate argued that the School Tribunal should have allowed the appeal since the respondents did not appear to contest the allegations, and alternatively sought a remand for fresh adjudication. The High Court noted that the School Tribunal had issued notices to the respondents, but none appeared, and the Education Officer also did not render assistance. The court observed that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal in the absence of any controverting evidence, but in the interest of justice, it set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter for fresh hearing. The respondents were directed to appear and produce documents, and the Tribunal was to decide the appeal within six months. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Teacher Termination - Oral Termination - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The petitioner teacher alleged oral termination by management after grants were received. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal despite non-appearance of respondents. The High Court held that the Tribunal should have allowed the appeal or remanded the matter, and set aside the judgment, remanding the case for fresh hearing with opportunity to respondents to appear and produce documents. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner teacher when the respondents did not appear to controvert the allegations of oral termination.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 05.05.1997 and remanded the matter to the School Tribunal for fresh hearing. The respondents are directed to appear and produce documents. The School Tribunal shall decide the appeal within six months from the date of the order. The writ petition is disposed of.
Law Points
- Oral termination of teacher
- non-appearance of management
- remand to School Tribunal
- opportunity to produce documents
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 182
Writ Petition No. 2393 of 1997
Shri M.S. Chaudhari for Petitioner, Shri S.N. Kendre AGP for Respondents 4 and 6
Adarsh Shikshan Sanstha through its Secretary, The Head Master, Loni High School, Shri Kanthale V.N., The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal by the School Tribunal regarding oral termination of a teacher.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought reinstatement with continuity and full back wages, or alternatively remand to the School Tribunal.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was orally terminated from service on 22.08.1995 after working continuously since 01.08.1989.
Previous Decisions
School Tribunal dismissed Appeal No.163/1995 on 05.05.1997.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal when the respondents did not appear to contest the allegations.
Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the appeal should have been allowed as the contentions were not controverted and there was no reason to disbelieve the petitioner.
Alternatively, counsel submitted that the matter could be remanded to the School Tribunal to permit respondents to appear and produce documents.
Ratio Decidendi
When the respondents do not appear to controvert the allegations, the Tribunal ought to allow the appeal. However, in the interest of justice, the matter can be remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to the respondents to appear and produce evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.05.1997 by which the School Tribunal has dismissed Appeal No.163/1995 filed by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner had approached the School Tribunal alleging that though he was appointed on 01.08.1989 and he worked continuously, the Respondent/ Management orally terminated him on 22.08.1995.
Shri Chaudhari, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, therefore, strenuously submits that the appeal should have been allowed as the contentions put forth by the Petitioner were not controverted and there was no reason for the School Tribunal to disbelieve the Petitioner.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Appeal No.163/1995 before the School Tribunal challenging oral termination. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 05.05.1997. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.2393 of 1997 in the Bombay High Court, which was admitted on 08.07.1997 without interim relief. The High Court disposed of the petition on 08.12.2016 by remanding the matter to the School Tribunal.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
