Gopal Dhula Shinde v. Sidhnath Shikshan Sanstha & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Mar 2012
- Bench
- G S GODBOLE
Outcome
Allowed
aside and all applications are allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. Deepa Matwankar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondent No. 3. --- CORAM : G.S. GODBOLE,J DATE : MARCH 20, 2012 P.C. :
901.wp4988,4995,4996,4997.sxw 1 While issuing notice in these Petitions on 28/7/2011, this Court has observed that if time permits the Petitions will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly Respondents have appeared and affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent No. 1 in all the Petitions. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. Ms. Deepa Matwankar waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Mr. Rayrikar, AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 3. 3 All these Petitions challenge the Judgment and Order dated 28/3/2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur in various applications filed by the Petitioners for condonation of delay in filing Appeals under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S.(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 4 Writ Petition No. 4988 of 2011 is filed by Gopal D. Shinde challenging dismissal of MA No. 24 of 2008. Writ
901.wp4988,4995,4996,4997.sxw Petition No. 4995 of 2011 is filed by Dharmaraj Sitaram Khendkar for challenging dismissal of MA No. 28 of 2008; Writ Petition No. 4996 of 2011 is filed by Anil Ankush Gurav for challenging dismissal of MA No. 27 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 4997 of 2011 is filed by Vinod Umap for challenging dismissal of MA No. 23 of 2008. All these Petitions are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by common Judgment since common questions of facts and law arise in these all these Petitions. 5 It was the case of the Petitioners that they have sent a notice to the Respondent Management through their Advocates on 7/1/2008 which was received by the Management on 15/1/2008 and in reply thereto the Management sent reply dated 10/2/2008 in which it was stated for the first time that the services of the Petitioner have been terminated on different dates. According to the Petitioners they came to know about the termination of their services only when reply was served on their advocate and the Petitioners visited their advocate in the month of March, 2008. Immediately thereafter all the Appeals have been filed.
901.wp4988,4995,4996,4997.sxw 6 The School Tribunal has dismissed the Applications essentially on the ground that it was a case of otherwise oral termination and that the Petitioners were prevented from signing the muster roll from the academic year 2007 it self. 7 In my opinion, this approach of the learned Presiding Officer of School Tribunal is erroneous. When the Management had contended that the services of the Petitioners were terminated, according to the Petitioners, the Orders of termination were never served on them. According to the Petitioners the date of knowledge of the Order of termination was the date on which their advocate received reply from the Advocate for the Respondent Management and thereafter the Petitioners met their Advocate. 8 In my opinion, sufficient case has been made out for explaining the delay in filing the Appeals and hence the case for condonation was made out. The School Tribunal ought to have taken lenient view about the explanation offered by the Petitioners for delay which has not been done. In my opinion,
Operative part
901.wp4988,4995,4996,4997.sxw the view taken by the School Tribunal is hyper technical and since it was the case of the Petitioners that they had demanded that they should be allowed to be continued in service and only thereupon the management informed them about termination, at the prima facie stage while considering the applications for condonation of delay this case of the Petitioners which was not shown to be false ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal. Appeal is an important right which has been given to the employees of private schools and the endevour of the school tribunal ought to have been to ensure that such an important right is not defeated on the technical ground of delay. Delay in the present cases is thus duly explained and this explanation deserved acceptance by the School Tribunal. Hence the impugned Judgments and Orders dated 28/3/2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal in MA Nos. 24/2008, 28/2008, 27/2008 and 23/2008 are quashed and set aside and all applications are allowed. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(G.S. GODBOLE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: aside and all applications are allowed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Mar 2012. The bench was G S GODBOLE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.