LAXMAN NAGORAO KHADAPversusSECRETARY GRAMIN JANATA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38788



                                                  (1)                        34 WP 15112 OF 2023


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               34 WRIT PETITION NO. 15112 OF 2023

                                    LAXMAN NAGORAO KHADAP
                                               VERSUS
                 SECRETARY GRAMIN JANATA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
           Mr. R. K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the Petitioner
           Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-State
           Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                                  …

                                              CORAM     : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                              DATE      : 24.08.2026

           PER COURT :-

           .            Being aggrieved by the order passed by the School Tribunal, the

           petitioner is before this Court.


           2.           Mr. R. K. Ashtekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits

           that the application filed by the petitioner, taking recourse to Section 13 of the

           Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation

           Act 1977 has been rejected by the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal

           observed that the prayers made in the application were for issuance of such

           orders or directions as were not executable.


           3.           There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties for

           which the parties have been before this Court on more than two occasions.
                                      (2)                        34 WP 15112 OF 2023


The grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner is that after his termination,

he filed an appeal u/s 9 of M.E.P.S. Act before the School Tribunal. However,

in 1996, he unconditionally withdrew his appeal. The withdrawal of the

appeal was on the premise that the Management had assured him, outside the

Court, that he would be accommodated on some post. The Management did

not adhere to its words and the litigation was opened. The net result of all the

proceedings till date is that the proceedings filed by the petitioner before the

Tribunal have been turned down, while the only hope available to the

petitioner was the liberty granted by this Court to take recourse to Section 13

of the Act. Referring to the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the Tribunal was under an obligation to entertain the execution

petition and deal with the same on merits.


4.          Mr.   V.   D.   Gunale,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent-

Management, supports the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that the

issue of restoration of the appeal and the alleged agreement between the

parties has already been dealt with by this Court. As such, learned counsel

submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.


5.          I have heard both the learned Advocates for the respective parties

at length. It is not disputed that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the
                                        (3)                    34 WP 15112 OF 2023


School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act, being Appeal No.210 of 1996 was

unconditionally withdrawn by him. Though the petitioner has referred to

some oral agreement between the parties neither the petitioner has sought to

have such agreement referred to nor the Tribunal has recorded the existence

of any such agreement. It is evident that in view of the order passed by this

Court, there is no occasion for restoration of the appeal. So far as the prayer

seeking a direction to the School Tribunal to enforce the alleged assurance of

accommodating the petitioner is concerned, in the absence of anything on

record demonstrating that the parties had arrived at any such agreement, the

Tribunal has rightly refused to entertain the application.


6. Section 13 of the Act reads thus :


       “13. Penalty to Management for failure to comply with
       Tribunal’s directions.—

       [(1)] If the Management fails, without any reasonable excuse,
       to comply with any direction issued by the Tribunal under
       section 11 or any order issued by the Director under clause (a)
       of sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 4A within the
       period specified in such direction, or as the case may be,
       under sub-section (5) of section 4A or within such further
       period as may be allowed by the Tribunal or Director, as the
       case may be, the Management shall, on conviction, be
       punished,—”



7.          The facts are very clear. There are no directions issued by the
                                       (4)                         34 WP 15112 OF 2023


Tribunal or by any other authority, the non-compliance of which could attract

the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. There is also no prayer seeking

enforcement of any direction referable to Section 11 of the Act.


8.           In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order

passed by the Tribunal. No case is made out for calling for interference by this

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.


9.           The writ petition stands dismissed.


10.          At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clarified

that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of any other legal remedy for the

same or for any other relief, as may be permissible in law. The issue of

limitation shall be governed by the provisions of law.




                                                    [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW