KIRITKUMAR B VASAVE Vs. SHIKSHAK SANCHALIT SHIKSHAN SANSTHA; HEAD MASTER; EDUCATION OFFICER (SECONDARY) ZILLA PARISHAD; BALABHAU JANARDAN SHINDE; PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent No.4. None present for the other respondents, though served. In fact, the notice was issued for final disposal of the matter at the admission stage itself. Since the other respondents have not appeared inspite of intimation about the hearing being fixed for final disposal of the matter, evidently they are not interested in the outcome of the petition.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 8-5-2003 passed by the School Tribunal, New Mumbai in Appeal No.44 of 2001 on the ground that inspite of specific ground regarding failure on the part of the management to adhere to the provisions of Rule 27(e) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules" in the matter of termination of services of the appellant, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same and has disposed of the appeal merely by referring to the provisions of Rule 27(a) of the said Rules to justify the decision of the management in that regard.

(3.) It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner in his memo of appeal had specifically raised the ground regarding non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 27(e) of the said Rules by the management while directing retrenchment of the petitioner and further that the same was canvassed before the School Tribunal in the course of the arguments, yet the Tribunal totally failed to consider the same while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the termination of his services. On the other hand, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent No.4 that though the said ground was raised in the memo of the appeal, it was not seriously canvassed before the School Tribunal.