VYANKATESH SIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in these three petitions is that the appeals filed by the respondent No. 3 have been disposed of without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to putforth their say in the matter.

(3.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 3 preferred appeals against the order of termination issued by the petitioner. For some time, there was no Presiding Officer for the School Tribunal at Aurangabad. After having appointed one such officer to preside over the said Tribunal, the same started re-functioning from 26th April, 1999. About 30 matters were listed on the notice board for the purpose of hearing on the said date and among those 30 matters, the same did not include the three, appeals filed by the respondent No. 3 herein. Though the learned Advocate for the petitioner herein and the respondents in those three appeals, was present in the same school Tribunal on the said day and had attended some of the listed matters, as the Court files pertaining to the matters in question were not traceable, left the school Tribunal at about 3. 30 p. m. Subsequent thereto, the said files having been traced, the three matters along with 5 other matters were added to list of cases on the notice board and these three matters were taken up for hearing after 3. 30 p. m. and the same were allowed in favour of the respondent No. 3. The orders allowing the appeals apparently disclose that the Advocates for both the parties were absent when the matters were called out and the orders were passed thereon. Subsequently in the month of August and within 30 days from the date of the orders dated 26th July, 1999, the petitioner filed applications for review of the said orders and for re-hearing of the matters. The same came to be objected to by the respondent No. 3 herein and were accordingly dismissed by the impugned orders. Hence, the present petitions.