G.S. HOLIKATTI Vs. PRESIDENT, SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1981 the petitioner before us, who was then Head Master of the New English School at Maindargi, purportedly submitted a letter or letters of resignation. This was after 20 years, he having started working as an Assistant Teacher with the Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Maindargi, Taluka Akkalkot, District Solapur, since 1961. It is the petitioner's grievance that on account of certain agitations and certain circumstances he had not resigned voluntarily but was forced to and/or coerced to submit these letters of resignation or admit that he had voluntarily retired before certain authorities.

(2.) The management acted on the resignation and according to Mr. Bhagalia, as a matter of fact, has appointed another person as Head Master to work in place and instead of the petitioner right from 1981 onwards. The petitioner himself denied voluntary resignation by making an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education. This was appropriate since the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978, had not yet been brought into force. This appeal to the Deputy Director of Education was preferred after his initial grievance to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, had been rejected. When he appealed to the Deputy Director of Education, Pune, the latter authority seems to have adopted a curious method of first obtaining report from the Education Officer and then observed as he did by a letter dated 26th June 1981 (Exh. 'R' to the petition) that there was no provision in S.S. Code to enquire into the resignation cases and, therefore, the petitioner's application was filed. Read in the proper manner it is clear that no decision was taken by the Deputy Director of Education on the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner thereafter made a grievance of the matters to the Director of Education, Pune. This was by his letter dated 3rd July 1981 and 11th Aug. 1981. The Director of Education replied to the same on 31st Aug. 1981 and the Director stated that the case was not coming under his jurisdiction and that, therefore, he could not do anything in the matter. It would appear thereafter that since in July the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978, had been brought into force the petitioner filed an appeal to the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune. It is from the judgment of the School Tribunal dismissing the appeal that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) In the opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment are revealing of the unsatisfactory manner in which this Tribunal has been working which would show that the matter was decided ex parte when the school management did not appear before the Tribunal. After prolix and somewhat confused consideration of the correspondence exchanged the Tribunal concluded as under :