SANJAYKUMAR UDDHAVRAO PACHANGEversusPRESIDENT SECRETARY CHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI RAJE SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL KHANDALA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46572



                                                                     WP.12524.2023.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO.12524 OF 2023

            Sanjaykumar Uddhavrao Pachange,
            Age:- 39 years, Occ. Asst. Teacher,
            R/o. Shriman Narayan Hari Sadhak Ashram,
            Bramhawadi, Post. Chapoli, Tq. Chakur,
            Dist. Latur                                               ..Petitioner

                     VERSUS

            1.       President/Secretary,
                     Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje Shikshan
                     Prasarak Mandal, Khandala,
                     Post. Kakaramba,
                     Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.

            2.       Principal,
                     Matoshri Trivenibai More Junior College,
                     Kakramba, Tal. Tuljapur,
                     Dist. Osmanabad.

            3.       Regional Deputy Director,
                     Education Office,
                     Mahatma Gandhi Square, Latur,
                      Dist. Latur.

            4.       Education Officer (Secondary),
                     Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad,
                     Dist. Osmanabad                             ..Respondents

                                               ----
            Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for petitioner
            Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.1
            Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, AGP for respondent nos.3 and 4
                                               ----

                                         CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                         DATE  :      SEPTEMBER 30, 2026
                                     2                      WP.12524.2023




PER COURT :-


            Heard Mr.V.D.Gunale, learned advocate for the petitioner;

Mr.Santosh Jadhavar, learned advocate for respondent no.1 – School

Management; and learned AGP for respondent nos.3 and 4.


2.          The petitioner claimed to have been appointed by the

respondent/Management on the post of Assistant Teacher way back

in 2013 by due process of law. The appointment was approved by

the Deputy Director of Education initially for probation period and

subsequently on permanent basis. While appointment was issued in

2013 the respondent/school was identified to have been recognised

on permanent non-grant basis. Subsequently, by virtue of the State

policy, the status of permanent non-grant was removed and the

school started receiving grant-in-aid.


3.          It appears that start of receiving grant-in-aid triggered

the controversy between the Management and employees who were

earlier appointed on non-grant basis. The controversy resulted even

into some criminal prosecution.      Since the petitioner had been

protesting against the school Management, he was targeted. This

resulted into oral termination of the petitioner on 10.03.2023.

Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed Appeal under Section 9
                                           3                              WP.12524.2023



of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of

Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the Tribunal at Solapur.

Pursuant    to   the    notices   issued       by   the   Tribunal,     the   school

Management caused its appearance and defended the appeal. The

school Management denied that the petitioner was ever appointed

by it.    It was further disputed that there was any assault by the

office-bearers of School Management on the petitioner.                   Since the

legality of the appointment itself was disputed,                the respondent –

school Management also disputed correctness of approval granted

by the Deputy Director of Education.                 At the conclusion it was

submitted by the school Management that since the petitioner was

not at all appointed by the School Management there was no

occasion even to orally terminate the petitioner/original appellant.


4.           Vide      the   impugned      judgment            and   order      dated

31.08.2023, learned Member of School Tribunal disallowed the

appeal.     Suffice     to   record,    the         Tribunal     held    that     the

petitioner/appellant could not prove that he was appointed on the

subject-matter post by due procedure of law in as much as it was

held that the appointment was not legal and valid. It was also held

that no case of otherwise termination on dated 10.03.2023 was

made out. With the findings in negative on first two issues, the rest
                                      4                      WP.12524.2023



issues were answered against the petitioner/appellant.         Feeling

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/appellant – employee is before this

court.


5.          Mr.Gunale, learned advocate for the petitioner made

endeavour to take me to the merits of the case. However, at one

juncture he fairly pointed out that when the appeal was fixed for

hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner/appellant before the

Tribunal was not present. In the absence of learned advocate for the

petitioner, Tribunal delivered the judgment.    He submits that had

there been some one to represent the petitioner/appellant before the

School Tribunal, the fate of the appeal could have been different. He

further submits that the School Tribunal tested the merit of the case

only from one perspective instead of examining the matter from all

points. He therefore now restricts his prayer to quash and set aside

the impugned judgment and order, and to relegate the matter back

to the Tribunal to decide it afresh on its own merit and without being

influenced by its earlier findings.


6.          Mr.Jadhavar, learned advocate for the respondent –

School Management has no objection to the said proposition made

by learned advocate for the petitioner.
                                       5                        WP.12524.2023



7.           The Roznama of the appeal proceedings annexed at page

No.156-A depicts that since 10.08.2023 the appellant’s advocate was

not present to address the Tribunal.       The matter was then listed on

23.08.2023, 28.08.2023 and lastly on 31.08.2023.             On all three

occasions, the appellant was personally present however his

advocate was absent. Thus, the Tribunal seems to have examined

the merit of the appeal on the basis of the documents produced

before it.


8.           In the light of the afore mentioned facts, the request

made by Mr.Gunale, learned advocate for the petitioner appears to

be a moderate one.       The disputed questions of facts need to be

answered by the Tribunal by giving full opportunity of hearing to both

the sides.


9.           In view of this, I pass the following order:-


A)           The Writ Petition stands partly allowed.


B)           The judgment and order dated 31.08.2023 passed by

learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur is quashed and set

aside. The matter is relegated back for fresh consideration on its

own merits by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the

date of appearance of the parties.
                                         6                           WP.12524.2023



C)           Both the parties candidly agree to appear before the

School Tribunal on 12.10.2026.


D)           The School Tribunal shall then fix the date of hearing and

hear the appeal afresh without being influenced by its earlier

findings recorded in the impugned judgment and order.


E)           Suffice   it   to   note,   the   Tribunal   shall     take    into

consideration the order passed by the Divisional Deputy Director of

Education, Latur on 06.09.2023 while adjudicating the appeal.


F)           Both the sides candidly agree that they shall not file any

other additional document before the School Tribunal, and shall

argue the appeal only on the basis of the material which is already

on record.


G)           This court in the last order has recorded the adamant

approach of the office-bearers of the School Management.                   Even,

they have not updated/instructed its own lawyer and therefore

bailable warrant was issued to the Headmaster of the School who

was in fact already terminated by the Management.                 Due to their

attitude, they have not only delayed the proceedings of this Writ

Petition but also put the petitioner for unnecessary expenses. Even

they also brought their learned advocate into an embarrassing
                                    7                        WP.12524.2023



position. In view of this, respondent no.1 - shall deposit a cost of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in the Tribunal on or before

appearing before the Tribunal on 12.10.2026. On such deposit, the

petitioner/appellant shall be at liberty to withdraw the same.




                                 [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                               ………..


KBP