DADASAHEB KISAN JAGDALE Vs. PRINCIPAL NMV HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner s services ceased from 1.8.1991. According to the petitioner, he has been wrongly terminated from service by the management. However, the management claims that by a letter dated 26.7.1991 the petitioner had resigned from service. The Respondents have treated this letter as one of resignation and they have accepted it. The petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal alleging that his services had wrongly been terminated on the basis of the letter that he issued on 26.7.1991.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner filed civil suit No.1078 of 1993 earlier for a declaration and perpetual injunction against the management. This Civil Suit was filed by the petitioner on 11.6.1993 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The petitioner withdrew the civil suit with liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. It appears that thereafter the petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Education for redressal of his grievance. He then approached the Lokayukta. The Lokayukta held that it was not possible to look into the petitioner s grievance since it was barred by limitation. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Writ Petition No.2999 of 1996 in this Court challenging the order of the Lokayukta dated 12.12.1995. The petition was dismissed as misconceived on 7.3.1996. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal i.e. Appeal No.48 of 1996.

(3.) On 9.4.1999, the school tribunal dismissed the appeal. In their reply the management had brought to the notice of the school tribunal that the petitioner had commenced several proceedings before various fora in which he had failed. The Tribunal held that in view of the fact that the Civil Court had held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, after which the petitioner chose to withdraw the suit, the petitioner could not succeed in the appeal. The Tribunal thus decided that the appeal was not maintainable in view of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 11 of the MEPS Act. Thus, without going into the merits of the dispute between the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.