RAJIV SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) C.A. No.579 of 2004 is for appropriate directions/final disposal of the writ petition. This writ petition has already been admitted on 27.6.2001 and, therefore, today the matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 29.4.1999 passed by the School Tribunal has been challenged in Appeal No.STN 245/1995 whereby the appeal preferred by respondent no.4 was allowed and it was directed that she be reinstated on the post of Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I.) along with arrears of emoluments. He contended that the School Tribunal while disposing of the appeal framed only one issue, i.e. "Whether the alleged oral termination order dated 23.7.1995 issued by the respondents no.1 and 2 is legal and proper - He contended that three issues are required to be framed while dealing with such matter and in support of this submission he relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court on the case of Anna Manikrao Pethe vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, 1997 3 MhLJ 697. He further contended that the same view has been adopted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.529 of 2002 which has been disposed of by the order dated 30.8.2002 with a direction of remanding the matter to the School Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law after framing three issues which are required to be framed. He further contended that there is only one sanctioned post of P.T.I. in the school and one Arun Bapuraoji Yenurkar has already been employed on that post and because of the filing of this petition he was likely to be affected by the order which could be passed in this petition and hence he had filed W.P. No.410 of 2001, in which this Court by the order dated 27.6.2001 protected the service of respondent no.5, i.e. Arun Bapuraoji Yenurkar who is a confirmed employee by giving specific direction that Arun shall not be removed from service on the basis of the order dated 29.4.1999 passed by the School Tribunal. He, therefore, contended that in such circumstances the matter deserves to be remitted to the School Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law after framing the three issues.