High Court
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) wp1420.17IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD927 WRIT PETITION NO. 1420 OF 2017RAVINDRA AMBADAS GORWADKARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSMr.S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr.S.P. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 4.Mr.R.J. Godbole, Advocate for respondent No.3.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:07.01.2025PC :-01.The petitioner has challenged an order dated 06.06.2016passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, AurangabadDivision, Aurangabad dismissing his appeal bearing No.38 of 2012,challenging his otherwise termination.02.Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra. RespondentNos.2 and 3 are Head Master and President of the managementrespectively. Respondent No.4 is an Education Officer (Secondary), ZillaParishad, Aurangabad. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are other Assistant ( 2 ) wp1420.17Teachers working in the same school.03.It is case of the petitioners that he was appointed as anAssistant Teacher by respondent No.4 by following due process andagainst clear vacant post of Assistant Teacher by order dated01.07.2005. He was paid honorarium as that time the school was onnon-grant basis. Initially the petitioner was appointed on probation.Even after completion of probation period, he was not made permanent.It is his further case that though respondent Nos.5 and 6 were appointedafter the petitioner, they were made permanent. However, the petitionerwas not made permanent. The respondents, however, did not allow thepetitioner to join school or to resume duties from 18.09.2012, orallycommunicating that he has been removed from the school. Inspite ofinsistence, the school authorities refused to give termination order inwriting. The petitioner, therefore, approached the School Tribunal,Aurangabad with a case that his services are terminated withoutfollowing due process of law and without any enquiry. He prayed forquashing and setting aside the termination and for reinstatement alongwith back wages and continuity of service with consequential benefits.04.It is defence of the Head Master and the Management that ( 3 ) wp1420.17the petitioner was never duly appointed as Assistant Teacher and thus hehas no locus to file the appeal. There is no question of terminatingservices. No advertisement was issued for the post. No selectionprocess was undertaken. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were appointed on01.09.2005 and 27.11.2006 respectively; whereas the petitioner wasappointed on 02.07.2008 against one unsanctioned post on consolidatedsalary. Since other respondents were seniors, their proposals were sentfor approval. The Education Officer granted approval to their services. Itis, thus, denied that the petitioner was appointed on 01.07.2005. Theyspecifically denied that from 18.09.2012 the services of the petitioner areterminated. On the contrary, it is the stand that the petitioner himselfleft the school without any intimation and prayed for dismissal of theappeal.05.Before the School Tribunal, there was no material placedshowing that the petitioner was selected by following due process of law.The petitioner produced on record one experience certificate issued bythe management dated 13.04.2012. However, same was denied by themanagement. The certificate was sent for obtaining expert’s opinion. Thehand-writing expert opined that the signature on the certificate is not ofrespondent No.2 i.e. Head Master. However, the petitioner denied the ( 4 ) wp1420.17report. The seniority list which was submitted by the petitioner alsoshows appointment of the petitioner as 02.07.2008. Another documentis produced by the petitioner showing that he had undergone trainingduring the period from 12.12.2012 to 16.12.2012. He denied the reportof hand-writing expert. The management brought on record that therewere only five posts in the school, out of which three posts were for opencategory and two for reserved category. Though one of the teachersappointed against reserved category left the school, the petitioner couldnot have been accommodated against that post. The petitioner also hadsubmitted written arguments. 06.The learned Presiding Officer mainly considered that thepetitioner failed to produce on record any material to show that he wasduly appointed on clear vacant post in the year 2005. Even appointmentorder is not produced on record. The experience certificate is not provedas issued by the Head Master. So far as certificate of training isconcerned, the Tribunal considered that the said training was from12.12.2012 till 16.12.2012, whereas case of the petitioner himself is thathe was terminated from 18.09.2012. So, there is no question of relyingon the certificate. As regards seniority list, it is considered that theappointment of the petitioner at the most is shown from 02.07.2008 and
Legal Reasoning
( 5 ) wp1420.17the same is against the stand taken by the petitioner. In the year 2008,there were only two posts of Assistant Teachers for open categorypersons and both were filled in. Thus, on all these counts, the learnedPresiding Officer dismissed the appeal.07.It is mainly argued by learned Advocate Mr. Barlinge for thepetitioner that the petitioner was appointed to the School and there is nodispute about the same. His services were terminated orally. It is caseof the management that the petitioner left the school on his own. Thereis nothing on record to show that the management ever issued notice tothe petitioner for absenteeism. The date of termination is immaterial.The experience certificate and the letter sending the petitioner fortraining is sufficient to show that the petitioner was in service. Even therespondents accept that at least in 2008, the petitioner was in serviceand his name also appears in the seniority list. Under suchcircumstances, it was incumbent to hold enquiry before termination.08.As against this, the learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2and 3 vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the petitionerhas utterly failed to show that he was appointed by following due processof law. No particulars of publishing of advertisement and calling for ( 6 ) wp1420.17interview are given. From the record it is shown that no post wasavailable so as to appoint the petitioner in the school. In the prayer ofthe appeal memo itself date of termination is given as 18.09.2012.Considering the date and the period of training, it is clear that the dategiven of alleged termination is imaginary.09.This Court has gone through the judgment and order passedby the learned Presiding Officer. The judgment and the documentsproduced along with petition clearly show that the petitioner could notproduce any material to show that he was duly appointed as AssistantTeacher by following due process of law. Even the date of allegedtermination appears to be imaginary. On one hand it is stated that thepetitioner was terminated orally on 18.09.2012; whereas the petitioneralso relies on the document that he undergone training from 12.12.2012till 16.12.2012, when in-fact the appeal itself was filed on 16.10.2012.Further fact which creates doubt about so called experience certificate isthat the hand-writing expert has opined that the signature on the saidcertificate does not match with the signature of the Head Master. Thus,the petitioner failed even on this count.10.Considering all the above, this Court finds that no case is
Decision
( 7 ) wp1420.17made out calling for interference at the hands of this Court. The petitionis, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/jan25/wp1420.17