DR ZAKIRHUSAIN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHERversusMAIMUNABEGUM SHAIKH AHMAD AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38474

                                                              (1)                                WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 10305 OF 2024

                                                                                                District : Nanded
           1.      Dr. Zakirhusain Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
                   Atkali, Ta.: Biloli, Dist.: Nanded
                   Through its Secretary.

           2.      Haji Mohd. Magdum Urdu Primary School
                   Degloor, Dist.: Nanded
                   Through its Head Master.                                            ...PETITIONERS

                   VERSUS

           1.      Maimunabegum Shaikh Ahmad
                   Age: 59 yrs. Occu.: Retired,
                   R/o: Bahegaon Road, Degloor
                   Ta.: Degloor, Dist.: Nanded.

           2.      The Education Officer (Primary)
                   Zilla Parishad, Nanded
                   Dist.: Nanded                                                      ...RESPONDENTS

           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Krishna Pratap Rodge, Advocate for the Petitioners
           Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
           Mr. Amol N. Kakade, Advocate for Respondent No.1
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         CORAM                        : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                         RESERVED DATE                : 21.08.2026
                                         PRONOUNCED DATE: 25.08.2026

           JUDGMENT :-
                                      (2)                        WP 10305 OF 2024.odt



1.    Preface

.     At the outset this Court is constrained to express serious disappointment

to see the anarchic and disorderly conduct of the Petitioner showing how

casually and adamantly the order passed and finding recorded by the High

Court are flouted the Petitioner. A permanent Assistant Teacher on a fully

aided school whose services are approved by the Education Officer, was

terminated without holding enquiry for objecting illegal and forceful monthly

recovery by the Management from each employee’s salary. The termination

was struck down by the School Tribunal in an appeal filed by the employee.

The challenge raised by the Petitioner was rejected by this Court observing

that employee’s appointment was absolutely legal. The employee was re-

instated. Again the Petitioner Management terminated the said employee on

the same count that her appointment was not lawful. No enquiry was

conducted. Employee again rushed to the School Tribunal in an Appeal. The

Appeal was allowed setting aside termination. In the meantime, the employee

superannuated. Now the Management is again before this court on the same

count which is disapproved by this Court. Pertinent to note, the order passed

by this Court in earlier Writ Petition is suppressed in this round of litigation.

The employee exposed it.


2.    Subject-matter : Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated

29-02-2024 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal,
                                       (3)                       WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


Latur in Appeal No.09 of 2020, the School Management and the Head master

of the School have filed this Writ Petition. The Tribunal has set aside the

termination of the school employee i.e. the Respondent no.1, and the said

order is under challenge.

3.    The Petitioners have put forth following substantive prayers in the Writ

Petition.

            “C. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.02.2024
            passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Latur
            in Appeal No. 9/2020, may kindly be quashed and/or set
            aside and for that purpose, necessary orders be passed;
            D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition,
            the effect, execution, operation and implementation of the
            impugned judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 passed by
            the Ld. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Latur in Appeal
            No. 9/2020, be stayed and for that purpose, necessary
            orders be passed.”

4.    Facts in brief :

a)    This is third round of litigation between the Petitioners and the

Respondent no.1. The case in hand is of termination of a permanent Assistant

Teacher without taking recourse to the disciplinary proceedings under the

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation

Act 1977.

b)    The Respondent no.1 held qualification of H.S.C., D.Ed.(Urdu Medium).

On 16-06-1997 and was lawfully appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher

from general category. Her services were approved. Everything was going
                                     (4)                       WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


smoothly until 2000 when dispute between the school employees and the

Management started on account of withdrawal of employees’ pay by forging

the signatures.

c)    The Petitioner Management developed grudge against the Respondent

no.1, and her salary was stopped. The Respondent no.1 approached this court

vide Writ Petition No.494 of 2010. On indulgence of this Court, salary was

continued.

d)    Then on 16-04-2013, a notice was issued to the Respondent no.1 by the

Petitioner Management calling upon her to submit her caste certificate. It was

alleged that the Respondent no.1 sought appointment on a post reserved for

Other Backward Class category, and yet submitted a bogus caste certificate.

e)    Respondent no.1 replied the notice denying such allegations. It was

contended that she was appointed on a post meant for General Category, and

there is no occasion and no reason to submit any bogus certificate.

f)    On 27-04-2013, the Petitioner school Management terminated the

Respondent no.1. This was obviously without conducting any enquiry. An

appeal No.28 of 2013 was filed by the Respondent no.1 before the School

Tribunal. After hearing the parties and observing that the termination was

illegal, the School Tribunal allowed the appeal on 25-08-2016. The Tribunal

expressed that it was open for the Management to conduct an enquiry as per

the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules

1981 (for brevity “the Rules of 1981”).
                                     (5)                       WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


g)    The Petitioner assailed the decision of the School Tribunal in this Court

vide Writ Petition No.10477 of 2016. This Court disallowed the Writ Petition,

and affirmed the Judgment and Order passed by the School Tribunal. The sole

objection of the Petitioner Management that the Respondent no.1 was not

lawfully appointed was struck down, and it was observed that she was

appointed on general seat. It was also observed that the 1 st respondent was

not responsible for category shown in the approval for which the Management

had filed proposal showing the appointment on reserved category behind the

back of the 1st respondent.

h)    Later, the Respondent no. 1 was re-instated. The Management could not

tolerate 1st respondent’s existence in the School. This resulted into

re-termination of the Respondent no.1 on 21-01-2020. This was again on same

count of lawfulness of the appointment.

i)    Respondent no.1 assailed the termination before the School Tribunal

vide appeal No.09 of 2020. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal allowed the

appeal No.09 of 2020 vide Judgment and Order dated 29-02-2024. Hence, the

Petitioners are before this Court.

j)    Suffice to note, during the pendency of the appeal, the Respondent no.1

stood superannuated.

5.    Submissions :

a)    Mr. Krishna Rodge, learned advocate for the Petitioners assails all the

observations recorded by the Tribunal. His predominant contention is that the
                                     (6)                          WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


Respondent no.1 belonged to Other Backward Class category, and she did not

produce her caste certificate and its validation before the Management.

b)    It is further submitted that rather it was discovered that the certificate

which the Respondent no.1 submitted, was not at all issued from the

Government office.

c)    As such, it is contended that the Respondent no.1 played fraud on the

Management while obtaining appointment. It is further contended that the

Respondent no.1 was indulged in a number of illegal activities.

d)    That, the Tribunal did not consider that the Respondent no.1 could not

establish that she was not gainfully employed while being out of service. The

power of the Tribunal to grant pensionary benefits is also challenged.

      With these submissions, Mr. Rodge, learned advocate for the Petitioners

prays to set aside the Judgment and Order passed by the Tribunal.

e)    Mr. Amol Kakade, learned advocate for Respondent no.1 supports the

findings recorded by the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal has rightly

observed that the Respondent no.1 was lawfully appointed on her post. He

would invite my attention to the finding of the Tribunal wherein it is clearly

observed that the Respondent no.1 was appointed through general category

and that she has not created any fraud.

f)    Mr. Kakade further submits that Respondent no.1’s services were duly

approved by the Education Officer. The said approval was neither revoked nor

was cancelled at any point of time. He would submit that out of personal
                                       (7)                     WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


grudge, the members of the Management body twice terminated the

Respondent no.1. Mr. Kakade was at pains to express that the Petitioners had

absolutely no regards to the orders passed by the Tribunal and the

observations recorded by this Court.

g)    He would further submit that the Petitioners although referred to earlier

Writ Petition, they conveniently avoided to produce the copy of the order

before this court. His last submission is that neither the Petitioners have any

case on merit nor they have approached this Court with clean hands. With

this, Mr. Kakade prays to dismiss the petition.

h)    Learned advocate Mr. Pulkundwar for the Education Officer does not

dispute the findings of the Tribunal and the findings of this Court in Writ

Petition No.10477 of 2016. He restricts his submissions to the extent of

payment of arrears and backwages. He would submit that the termination was

without permission from the Education Officer, and hence the Management is

responsible for the backwages and arrears. On putting a specific query,

Mr. Pulkundwar submits that apparently no enquiry is conducted before

terminating the Respondent no.1. He accepts that the approval was rightly

granted, and was never revoked or cancelled.

6.    Discussion and consideration :

a)    I heard all the learned advocates at length. I perused the pleadings

submitted by both the parties. The finding recorded by the School Tribunal

about nature of Respondent no.1’s appointment and her qualification are
                                       (8)                          WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


findings of facts. The Tribunal has upheld that the Respondent no.1 was

lawfully appointed and there was no procedural defect nor there was any

illegality in her appointment taking to any count. These are not the findings

recorded at once, but those are recorded twice.

b)    The School Management has nothing to place before the Court to brush

aside the findings of the Tribunal.

c)    I discard the objection of the Petitioner about Respondent no.1’s

appointment on a post reserved for Other Backward Class category, and the

objection that she played any fraud on the Management. For that, I reproduce

the findings of this Court in its order dated 16-11-2016 passed in Writ Petition

No.10477 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner against earlier Judgment and Order

passed by the Tribunal.

       “3. I find from the appointment order that respondent No.1 was
       never appointed on a post reserved for the OBC. The appointment
       order dated 02/05/2006 pursuant to a Resolution No.7/2006
       passed   by   the   petitioner/Management     indicates   that   the
       respondent/employee was appointed on a post which was not
       reserved for any category. Reliance is placed on the approval order
       to indicate that the appointment of respondent No.1 was approved
       against the OBC category.
       4. The Tribunal, while considering the said aspect, has taken into
       account the fact that the appointment of the respondent/employee
       from the Open Category could not have been brought under a
       reservation through the approval, which was granted by the
       authorities on a proposal sent by the Management. This would
                                      (9)                        WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


      indicate that the Management has surreptitiously modified the
      appointment of the respondent/employee (behind her back) and
      has forwarded the proposal for approval to a post reserved for the
      OBC. Since this was impermissible and since the petitioner has
      dismissed respondent No.1 by passing a stigmatic order without
      conducting any enquiry, the Tribunal has rightly directed the
      petitioner to conduct an enquiry pursuant to the charges levelled,
      in the event the Management presses the said charge.
      5. In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned
      judgment of the Tribunal could be termed as being perverse or
      erroneous or likely to cause gross injustice (Syed Yakoob
      Vs.K.S.Radhakrishnan and others, reported at AIR 1964 SC 477
      and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai, reported at 2003(6) SCC
      682).”


d)    Suffice to note, the Petitioner Management never challenged this order

passed by this court, nor proceeded to conduct enquiry against the Respondent

no.1 pursuant to the observations expressed by the School Tribunal.

e)    It is an admitted fact that the Respondent no.1 was a permanent

employee in the private school having served for 26 years. Her services were

approved as a permanent employee. This Court has clearly observed that it is

the School Management who obtained Respondent no.1’s approval, and that

she can not be held to have played any fraud at any point of time. The

appointment was on a seat meant for general category.

f)    It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence pertaining to employees

in private educational institutions that, a permanent employee can not be
                                       ( 10 )                     WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


terminated without conducting departmental enquiry under the provisions of

the Rules of 1981.

g)    Mr. Rodge fairly accepts that no such enquiry was ever conducted

against the Respondent no.1, either at the earlier time or even after dismissal

of the earlier Writ Petition. It is a matter of fact the Petitioner Management did

not challenge the order passed by this Court disallowing the Writ Petition and

the observations as regards lawfulness of the appointment of Respondent no.1.

h)    In view of this, nothing more needs to be added to confirm the findings

recorded by the School Tribunal. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on

the principle of law that “ A permanent employee cannot be dismissed on any

count without conducting an enquiry under the relevant service regulations;

and that such dismissal/termination without conducting an enquiry is per-se

and abundantly illegal.”

i)    Despite findings of this Court as regards to lawfulness of Respondent

no.1’s appointment, the Petitioner has continued to harass her on the same

count. Again in this round of litigation, the same stand is taken by the

Petitioners. The Petitioners have boldly trashed the findings of this Court,

which demonstrates complete lawlessness on the part of the Petitioners.

j)    Respondent no.1’s first termination was set aside by the Tribunal and

the said decision was confirmed by this court. Again, when the Petitioners

effected the same termination on same count, it is not only illegal, but in fact

it is highly contemptuous.
                                         ( 11 )                   WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


k)    There is one more reason indicating mischievous conduct of the

Petitioner. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner conveniently avoided to plead

about earlier Writ Petition No.10477 of 2016, and the findings recorded by

this court in its order dated 16-11-2016. I have minutely gone through the

pleadings in the Writ Petition. At paragraph No.2 of the Writ Petition, it is

stated that the Respondent no.1 filed an appeal No.28 of 2013 which was

allowed on 25-08-2016. However as observed, the further facts of filing the

Writ Petition and its dismissal with the findings (supra), are conveniently

suppressed. This is high time to deal with Petitioners sternly by imposing

heavy exemplary costs. This is because if not dealt so, the Petitioners shall be

encouraged to continue their wrong perception that judicial pronouncements

by the Tribunal and a Constitutional Court are worthless, and can be

conveniently vanquished at their (petitioners’) own.

l)    Petitioner’s   argument    about     Respondent   No.1’s   entitlement       for

backwages is liable to be struck down. Petitioner did not prove that the

Respondent No. 1 was gainfully employed while she was out of service.

Petitioner can not seek burden on the Respondent No. 1 to produce negative

evidence to show that she was not gainfully employed during this period. At

this juncture, the argument is of no avail to the Petitioner.

m)    Lastly, a feeble attempt is made by the Petitioner to throw the burden of

salary and arrears of backwages on the Education Officer. At threshold I

discard such request. I deem it appropriate to place my hands beneficially on
                                       ( 12 )                       WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Educational

Society, Tumsar and ors. Vs. State and ors. reported at 2016 (3) SCC 512., For

convenience, I reproduced paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the findings therein :

      12. Insofar as present case is concerned, we are of the opinion that
      it is not necessary to go into the issue as to whether Government
      Resolution dated 14.03.1978 is no more valid or whether
      provisions of the Act or Rules are contrary to the aforesaid
      Resolution and, therefore, would govern the field. For the reasons
      recorded hereinafter, we find that the manner in which action was
      taken by the appellants against respondent No. 4 and the findings
      of the Tribunal thereupon, it is the appellants who are obligated to
      pay the back wages to respondent No. 4. We find that in the
      peculiar facts of the present case, the School Tribunal consciously
      put the burden of paying back wages of respondent No. 4 upon the
      appellant school authorities.
      13. It may be worth noting that an aided school is bound to follow
      the dictat of the relevant provisions of applicable rules etc. for
      conduct of Departmental enquiries and termination of services of
      an employee present thereto. In the instant case, the concerned
      rules are Maharashtra Employees Private School Rules, 1981
      (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the concerned provisions
      applicable were the Act, 1977 (which came into force from
      20.03.1978, as noted above). The School Tribunal while holding
      the termination to be illegal gave a specific finding to the effect
      that appellant 2, who initiated the enquiry, was not lawfully
      empowered to do so without the decision of the Enquiry
      Committee being supported by the Managing Committee. Issues
      No. 1 and 2 framed in this behalf were specifically decided against
      the appellants. It was further found that no Enquiry Committee as
                                             ( 13 )                             WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


      per the Rules was constituted. The findings of the School Tribunal
      are also to the effect that the mandatory provisions of law were
      not followed. It is, therefore, a case where appellants acted
      without jurisdiction and without adhering to the provisions of the
      Act and the Rules. Had the provisions of Rules been followed, that
      would have initiated participation of the representatives of the
      Government in the decision-making process right from decision to
      initiate the enquiry to the dismissal of respondent No. 4. This
      would      have    led     to     a    situation      where    the        State
      Government/Education Officer would have given its imprimatur to
      the entire proceedings including order of termination of
      respondent No. 4. Had termination order been set aside under
      such circumstances, it would have amounted to setting aside the
      order of the Government making the Government responsible for
      payment of back wages, as the act of termination, found ultimately
      illegal,   would    have        been   with     the    blessings     of      the
      Government/Education Officer. However, in the present case, what
      is found is that the State Government/Education Officer had no
      role to play in passing the order of termination and the school
      authorities acted without jurisdiction thereby transgressing their
      powers to terminate. Specific findings to this effect are recorded by
      the School Tribunal. For these reasons, even when Education
      Officer was impleaded as a respondent in the appeal filed by
      respondent No. 4, the School Tribunal consciously did not give any
      direction for payment of these back wages by the Education
      Department.


      It is an admitted fact that the Respondent No.1 was removed not once,

but twice without conducting any enquiry and taking exception to the Rules of

1981. In view of above, I must hold that only Petitioner Management is
                                      ( 14 )                    WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


responsible for the backwages and the arrears.

n)    I am constrained to observe that the writ petition is nothing but an

abuse of process. For the reasons recorded above, the Writ Petition stands

dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- in view of the clear

contemptuous, disorderly and anarchic conduct of the Petitioner.

o)    Ordinarily this Court would not issue any more directions as regards to

the execution of the order. But the way the orders and observations of this

court have been taken for a ride mischievously, it is clear that the Petitioners

have utter disregard to the court orders. Hence, it is indispensable to have a

check on the Petitioners atleast for once.

p)    In view of the exceptional circumstances, I deem it necessary to levy

some restrictions on the Petitioners in exercise of the jurisdiction u/a 227 of

the Constitution. Hence, I pass following order:

                                  1. O R D E R

      I.   The Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 3,00,000/-, to
           be deposited in this Court within a period of Four weeks from
           today. Upon deposit of the cost, the Respondent no.1 is
           permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- out of it. The balance
           cost amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be transmitted to the Samagra
           Shiksha Abhiyan, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. If the cost is not
           paid within the given time, the same shall be recovered as
           land revenue, and a report of compliance shall be submitted
           to the registry of this Court within Sixteen weeks from today.
                                         ( 15 )                     WP 10305 OF 2024.odt


       II.   Within Four weeks herefrom, the Petitioners shall pay the
             entire back wages with arrears to the Respondent no.1, and
             shall submit her pension proposal to the concerned Education
             Officer(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded.

      III.   Until the compliance of above directions, the Petitioners shall
             not create third party interest on their properties, nor a third
             party interest shall be created on the personal properties of
             the management members.

      IV.    Upon receipt of the pension proposal, the Education Officer
             (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded shall release Respondent
             no.1’s pension within four weeks thereafter. If no such
             proposal is received from the Petitioner Management, the
             Education Officer shall prepare pension papers from the
             record, and shall ensure release of the pension within a
             period of Four weeks from the last date given to the
             Petitioner Management to submit the pension proposal.

       V.    The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded is
             directed to file proposal to the concerned Deputy Director of
             Education, to conduct an inquiry of the Petitioners, and to
             take the inquiry to its logical end, including de-registration if
             needed. An opportunity of hearing shall be given to the
             Petitioner Management. This job must be done within a
             period of Six months from today.




                                                      [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW