DHAINJE SHIKSHAN SANSTHA THROU. CHAIRMAN AND ANRversusSANDEEP DINKAR DAHIPITALE AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:38282
                                                                     39 WP-4830-26.DOC

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 4830 OF 2026


               Dhainje Shikshan Sanstha & anr.                        ..Petitioners

                       Versus

               Sandeep Dinkar Dahiphale & ors.                      …Respondents


               Mr. Nitin Kulkarni, for the Petitioners.

               Mr. Rahul Kadam, for the Respondents.


                                           CORAM :       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                           DATE     :    16th SEPTEMBER 2026

               ORDER :-

               1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

               2.      This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

               assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and

               order dated 17th February, 2026, passed by the learned

               Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No.38/2017

               whereby the termination of the Respondent No.1 from the

               service of the Petitioner No.2 – School was quashed and set

               aside and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the

               Respondent No.1 to his original post with continuity of service

               and other benefits and to pay 75% of the back wages to the



               SAINATH, PA                         1/7
                                                        39 WP-4830-26.DOC

Respondent      No.1   from   the   date   of   his   termination    till

reinstatement in service.

3.      In fact, this is the second round of litigation before this

Court.

4.      By an order dated 18th October, 2021, the learned

Presiding Officer, School Tribunal had set aside the termination

of the Respondent No.1 and, yet, declined to grant the relief of

reinstatement in service. Thereupon, the Respondent No.1 had

preferred WP/1258/2022.

5.      By an order dated 29th August, 2023, this Court, while

upholding the order of the School Tribunal setting aside the

termination of the Respondent No.1, remitted the appeal back to

the School Tribunal to decide whether the Respondent No.1 was

working against partially aided post or not and whether the

Respondent No.1 could be granted the relief of reinstatement.

6.      By the impugned judgment and order, the learned

Presiding Officer, School Tribunal returned a finding that, the

Respondent No.1 was appointed and working against partially

aided post when his services were illegally terminated. The

Respondent No.1 was directed to be reinstated in service and

paid 75% of back wages from the date of his termination till

reinstatement in service.


SAINATH, PA                         2/7
                                                    39 WP-4830-26.DOC

7.      Mr. Nitin Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners

submitted that, there was no material to show that the

Respondent No.1 was appointed against the post to which the

grant-in-aid was made available by the Government. The

learned Presiding Officer, Mr. Kulkarni would urge, selectively

read the material on record to hold that, the Respondent No.1

was working against a grant-in-aid post.

8.      It was further submitted that, the petitioners are ready

and willing to reinstate the Respondent No.1 to the same

position which he was allegedly occupying, namely Shikshan

Sevak and pay the consolidated remuneration. However, the

direction to reinstate the Respondent No.1 to the post of a

Teacher with continuity of service and other benefits and pay

75% of the back wages from the date of termination till his

reinstatement in service, is extremely onerous. To this extent,

Mr. Kulkarni would urge, interference is warranted with the

impugned order.

9.      In contrast to this, Mr. Rahul Kadam, the learned Counsel

for the Respondent No.1 submitted that, on the basis of the

documents which were tendered by the petitioners themselves,

it became evident that, the Respondent No.1 had been working

on a partially sanctioned post. The petitioners had made an


SAINATH, PA                        3/7
                                                        39 WP-4830-26.DOC

endeavour to suppress the material facts and documents from

the School Tribunal. An effort was made to obfuscate the matter.

In this backdrop, Mr. Kadam would urge, the writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

10.     As    noted   above,   the   order   of   termination   of   the

Respondent No. 1 was declared to be illegal and quashed and

set aside by the School Tribunal. The petitioners had not

assailed the said order passed by the School Tribunal. In

WP/1258/2022, this Court explicitly clarified that, the decision

of the School Tribunal setting aside the termination order dated

15th June, 2016, was not disturbed. Only the aspects of the

reinstatement in service and the back wages, arose for

consideration before the School Tribunal.

11.     In paragraph No.21 of the impugned judgment and order,

the School Tribunal had extracted the copies of the sanctioned

staffing pattern orders qua the Petitioner No.2 – School, from

the academic year 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. The learned

Presiding Officer, School Tribunal noted that, only in the

academic year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, there were 4 posts

sans any grant-in-aid, whereas for the academic year 2010-2011,

2011-2012 and 2012-2013, there were 4 posts with full grant

and 4 posts with partial grant-in-aid (60%).


SAINATH, PA                           4/7
                                                    39 WP-4830-26.DOC

12.     Comparing and contrasting, the copies of the muster roll

maintained by the Petitioner No.2 – School, the learned

Presiding Officer, School Tribunal found that, the Respondent

No.1 was working on a partially sanctioned grant-in-aid post.

Conversely, there was no unaided post and, therefore, the

Respondent No.2 could not have worked against a post without

grant-in-aid as no such post was sanctioned in staffing pattern

since the year 2010-2011. A categorical finding was recorded by

the School Tribunal that, the Respondent No.1 was one of the 8

teachers working against sanctioned strength of 8 teachers till

June, 2011.

13.     This Court finds that, the aforesaid findings are recorded

by the School Tribunal on the basis of evidence and material on

record. These findings are based on the orders of the staffing

pattern, which appear to be of unimpeachable credibility. Such

findings of facts cannot be interfered with in exercise of the

supervisory jurisdiction. It does not stand to the reason that,

though there was no sanctioned unaided post, yet, the

Respondent No.1 was allowed to work in the School since the

year 2010. The copies of the muster roll produced before the

School Tribunal indicate that, the name of the Respondent No.1

was shown at Serial Nos. 7 and 8 of the muster rolls.


SAINATH, PA                        5/7
                                                    39 WP-4830-26.DOC

Cumulatively, the orders of the staffing pattern and the copies of

the muster roll would establish that, the Respondent No.1 was

working against a partially aided post.

14.     The learned Presiding officer, School Tribunal has ascribed

justifiable reasons as to why the Respondent No.1 was entitled

to 75% back wages. An endeavour was made by the petitioners

to show that the Respondent No. 1 was gainfully employed as he

was running a snacks stall. It emerges from the record that, on

account of the illegal termination of the services of the

Respondent No.1, the latter was forced to run a snacks stall in

front of the very school where he was imparting education

before his illegal termination.

15.     In the case at hand, the normal rule of reinstatement with

continuity of service and back wages, on account of ex facie

wrongful termination, expounded in the case of Deepali Gundu

Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) &

ors.1, applies with full force       and   vigour   by   the   sheer

circumstances, which forced the teacher to run a snacks stall in

front of the very school at the cost of grave injury to his self-

esteem and standing in society.




1       (2013) 10 SCC 324
SAINATH, PA                        6/7
                                                                                    39 WP-4830-26.DOC

                           16.      The   learned   Presiding   Officer,   School   Tribunal    has

                           correctly appreciated the facts and the quantum of deduction

                           required to be made on account of forced self-employment, with

                           a tinge of humiliation, and in the matter of fastening the liability

                           on the petitioners only to pay the back wages. In exercise of the

                           supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not find any legal

                           infirmity in the impugned order.

                           17.      The Writ Petition stands dismissed.



                                                                       [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




Signed by: S.S.Phadke       SAINATH, PA                          7/7
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/09/2026 18:30:07