AWADBIN AHMAD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Clerk working with Respondent no. 2 in Respondent No. 3 School has challenged the order of School Tribunal dated 17-12-1993 by which Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by it. The case of the petitioner was that he has been terminated by oral order with effect from 3-8-1991.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that he joined the services of respondent in 1985 and in 1990 amount of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded from him and he was not permitted to sign attendance register. The petitioner approached the Education authorities and at the instance of authorities, the petitioner was again permitted to sign attendance register. It is in this background on 3-8-1991, he was orally discontinued from services. The petitioner challenged this discontinuation by filing appeal vide appeal No. l68/1991-A under Section 9 of maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , before the school Tribunal. Before the School Tribunal, the management came up with a defence that petitioner had submitted resignation which was duly accepted by the management and its acceptance was also communicated to the petitioner. The management, therefore, contended that there was no termination. The management also pointed out that after the petitioner left the service, a fresh advertisement was issued and the petitioner submitted his application for employment in response thereto. The School Tribunal has considered this position and thereafter has arrived at a finding that the petitioner did submit his resignation and as such his story of oral termination with effect from 3-8-1991 was not accepted and the School tribunal dismissed the appeal.

(3.) I have heard Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Bodade, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 and 5, Shri. Saboo, learned counsel for respondents No. 2a and 3a, Shri. Haq, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and Shri. Adkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 6.