MATOSHRI ANUSAYA MATA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL and ANRversusBALAJI RESHMAJI GARJE and ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:35061
                                                          Writ Petition No.3335/2006
                                             -: 1 :-




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                            WRIT PETITION NO. 3335 OF 2006 WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2007 WITH
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13344 OF 2009 WITH
                              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6188 OF 2023



              1.     Matoshri Anusaya Mata Shikshan
                     Prasarak Mandal, Sahyog Nagar,
                     Nanded, Through its Secretary,
                     Shri Shankar s/o Maruti Gitte,
                     Age 56 years, Ocu. Service,
                     R/o Nanded, District Nanded.

              2.     The Head Master,
                     Rajiv Gandhi Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
                     Nichpur, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded      .... PETITIONERS

                          VERSUS

              1.     Balaji s/o Reshmaji Garje
                     Age: 36 years, Occu: Service,
                     R/o Talechiwadi, Taluka Kandhar,
                     District Nanded.

              2.     The Education Officer (Secondary),
                     Zilla Parishad, Nanded.

              3.     The Deputy Director of Education
                     Latur Division, Latur                     .... RESPONDENTS


                                                …..
              Mr. Kalyan Patil, Advocate holding for
              Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioners
              Mr. B.K. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1
              Mr. B.V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for respondents No.2 and 3
                                                …..
                                          Writ Petition No.3335/2006
                              -: 2 :-



                        CORAM:      SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

                        DATE :      27th JULY, 2026

J U D G M E N T :-



1.          The petitioners raise challenge to the judgment and

order   dated   05.10.2005   rendered    by     the     School   Tribunal,

Aurangabad, in Appeal No.134/2003,            setting    aside the oral

termination of Respondent No. 1, ordered his reinstatement and

granted full back wages.


2.          The Respondent No.1 was working with the petitioners

for a period of about nine years at Rajiv Gandhi Madhyamik

Vidyalaya, Nichpur. To upgrade his qualifications, Respondent No.1

pursued further studies and completed the degree in April 2003.

Upon completing the course, when Respondent No.1 approached

the management to resume duties, however, was not permitted to

sign the muster roll.


3.          Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.1 approached

the School Tribunal challenging oral termination, the petitioner

management contended that the respondent was a temporary

teacher   whose    appointment   was    never     approved       and   had

voluntarily abandoned the services by remaining absent. The

School Tribunal held that the appointment of Respondent No.1 was
                                              Writ Petition No.3335/2006
                                -: 3 :-


against a clear and permanent vacancy and that his services were

terminated illegally, directing reinstatement with back wages.

Being aggrieved, petitioners approached this Court.


4.            The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,

untrained teacher has no right to continue in service, as such

appointments are on a year-to-year basis. The respondent No.1

accepted that he was not allowed to sign the muster roll from June

2002, as such, the appeal filed in 2003 is barred by limitation. The

counsel for petitioners further submits that, Respondent No.1

suppressed facts and fabricated a Hami-Patra regarding B.Ed.

sponsorship and that the Tribunal erroneously granted full back

wages.


5.            The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 supported the

order under challenge, submitting that a continuous service of nine

years indicates the presence of a permanent vacancy. It is

submitted that the respondent did not abandon the duties but was

prosecuting    his   B.Ed.   Course   based    on   the   management's

assurance to continue in service.         The learned counsel further

submits that, the cause of action for oral termination from April

2003.    As such, the Tribunal has not committed any error while

passing the order under challenge.


6.            Upon considering the rival submissions of litigating
                                            Writ Petition No.3335/2006
                                 -: 4 :-


sides and perusing the material on record, the contention of the

management regarding voluntary abandonment does not deserve

to be accepted. In view of the fact that Respondent No.1 served

continuously for nine long years disproves the petitioners' claim

that this was a routine temporary arrangement and the School

Tribunal rightly concluded that the appointment was against a clear

and permanent vacancy.


7.          Furthermore, the cause of action accrued in April 2003

when Respondent No.1 upon acquiring B.Ed. qualification was

prevented from resuming the duties. The appeal was presented

thereafter and the management cannot claim contrary to justify

claim of oral termination. The technical grounds raised regarding

the   Hami-Patra   does    not   warrant   consideration.   Since   the

termination was contrary to statutory provisions, the School

Tribunal, therefore, was within its jurisdiction justified to grant full

back-wages to restore the employee to his rightful position.


8.          Apart from the reasons stated above, it is noted that,

while this Court previously granted relief, it declined the interim

relief of reinstatement and confined the relief to the payment of full

back wages until the disposal of the petition. Despite this, the

petitioner defied the orders by neither reinstating the respondent-

employee nor complying with the directions. Consequently, the

employee moved an application, upon which, this Court, by an
                                          Writ Petition No.3335/2006
                               -: 5 :-


order dated 14.10.2009, directed the petitioner to take steps to

reinstate the respondent within two months.


9.          The petitioner's continued non-compliance is evident

from subsequent orders. A perusal of the record shows that

directions passed by this Court to forward the employee's service

details and records to the office of the Education Officer were also

ignored for a considerable period. Given this persistent non-

compliance, this Court was compelled to pass an order directing the

petitioner to show cause as to why contempt proceedings for

disobedience of Court orders should not be initiated. Thus, the

petitioner's willful conduct of non-compliance disentitles them from

claiming any relief.    The non-compliance on the part of the

petitioner with regard to the orders passed by this Court is

concerned, same disentitles the petitioner to claim the relief much

less the relief claimed in the petition and further apparently

appears to be aimed to defer the lawful entitlement of the

respondent No.1- employee, which is endorsed by the Tribunal.


10.         Furthermore, following the closure of the school, the

employee was absorbed into another school in the year 2014. Even

during that absorption process, the Management failed to ensure

strict compliance with this Court’s orders, particularly regarding the

submission of the service book to the Education Department.
                                          Writ Petition No.3335/2006
                              -: 6 :-


11.        In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no error in the

reasoned judgment and order rendered by the School Tribunal.

Consequently, the writ petition sans merit and does not warrant

any interference.


12.        The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged.


13.        Resultantly, pending civil applications stand disposed

of.


14.        Given the prolonged litigation and the hardship caused

to the employee, the petitioner shall pay an amount of 25,000/-

(Rupees twenty five thousand) as costs to be paid to respondent

No.1 within a period of 4 weeks from today.




                                   (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)




fmp/-