Balkrishna Waman Zambare vs Siddheshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Dongarsoni & Ors.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7001 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.10955 of 2019) BALKRISHNA WAMAN ZAMBARE Appellant(s) VERSUS

SIDDHESHWAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, DONGARSONI & ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.:

Leave granted.

(2) This appeal arises out of judgment and order of the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition NO.14384 of 2018

dated 04.03.2019 in and by which the High Court has set aside

the order of the School Tribunal and declining to condone the

delay in filing the petition before the School Tribunal.

(3) Brief facts are that the appellant was appointed in the

respondent no.1 school as a laboratory attendant on a vacant

permanent post vide appointment letter dated 06.10.1998. The

appellant’s appointment as a laboratory attendant was approved

by the Education Officer by Order dated 06.03.1999. According

to the appellant, subsequently on 26.09.2011 the appellant was

also promoted to the post of junior clerk by respondent no.1

school. Appellant’s promotion as a junior clerk was also

approved by the Education Officer by an Order dated 15.10.2012. Signature Not Verified (4) Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH

According to the appellant, there was dispute between two Date: 2019.09.14 10:06:27 IST Reason:

groups of trustees of respondent No.1-Institution. As the

appellant was promoted by the previous body of trustees, the 2

subsequently appointed new body which came to power on

22.11.2013, did not allow him to work and sign the school

attendance register w.e.f. 30.11.2013 which amounts to oral

termination. The appellant made various representations to

various authorities expressing his grievance and vide letter

dated 12.02.2014, the Education Officer directed Respondent

No.1-Institution to allow the appellant to join his duties; but

despite this order, the respondent-Institution did not allow

him to join.

(5) As per the order of the High Court in Writ Petition

No.5758 of 2013 dated 14.01.2015, the Education Officer vide

order dated 23.02.2015 granted approval for the promotion of

the appellant to the post of junior clerk. Since the Education

Officer has granted approval for the promotion of the appellant

as junior clerk, the appellant has withdrawn the Writ Petition

No.5758 of 2013.

(6) The respondent-Institution filed Writ Petition No.4470 of

2015 challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the

Education Officer granting approval for the promotion of the

appellant. Thereafter, the appellant requested the respondent-

Institution by various representations to permit him to work as

Laboratory Attendant but despite the same, the appellant was

not allowed to work. By the order dated 02.05.2016, the High

Court has set aside the approval granted by the Education

Officer on 23.02.2015. Thereafter, the appellant had filed

Appeal No.75 of 2016 challenging the oral termination dated

30.11.2013 of the post of Laboratory Attendant before the 3

Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur along with Civil

Misc. Application No.20 of 2016 praying for condonation of

delay in filing the same. During the pendency of the said

appeal, the respondent-Institution vide order dated 13.12.2016

has terminated the service of the appellant from the post of

Laboratory Attendant. Being aggrieved by the termination order

dated 13.12.2016, on 05.01.2017 the appellant has preferred

Appeal No.01 of 2017 before the School Tribunal, Kolhapur.

(7) As pointed out earlier, the appellant filed Civil Misc.

Application No.20 of 2016 for condonation of delay of two

years, ten months and fourteen days in challenging the order of

oral termination dated 30.11.2013. The School Tribunal vide

order dated 06.11.2017 condoned the delay by holding that the

delay has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. The

Tribunal further held that the appellant was in repeated

correspondence with the respondent-Institution between

31.11.2013 and 04.11.2016 regarding his case and all

correspondence have been filed on record and thus during the

period of delay, the appellant was never negligent at all and

hence, the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned. The

Tribunal has thus allowed the application for condonation of

delay subject to the payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the

respondent-Institution.

(8) Being aggrieved by condoning the delay, the first

respondent-Management preferred the writ petition before the

High Court. The High Court by the impugned order dated

04.03.2019 has set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed 4

the writ petition. Consequently, the appeal filed by the

appellant before the School Tribunal came to be dismissed.

Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Court.

(9) We have heard Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-Management and Mr. Nishant R.

Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

State and also perused the impugned judgment and the materials

on record.

(10) By the Order dated 13.12.2016 the service of the appellant

was terminated with retrospective effect from 30.11.2013. Case

of the appellant is that there were two groups in the

Management of the respondent school and because of the

differences between the two groups, his service came to be

terminated. The appellant relies upon the order of the

District Education Officer dated 06.03.1999 in and by which the

District Education Officer has approved the appointment of the

appellant as a lab attendant. The appellant also relies upon

the order of the District Education Officer dated 15.10.2012 in

and by which the District Education Officer has approved the

promotion of the appellant has a junior clerk. As rightly

pointed out by the Tribunal, the appellant was in repeated

correspondence with respondent-Institution between 31.11.2013

and 04.11.2016 and he has filed the correspondence on record.

(11) Considering the submissions of Mr. Sachin Patil, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant, and also facts and

circumstances of the case, in our view the delay in filing the 5

appeal before the School Tribunal has to be condoned to enable

the appellant to challenge the order of termination dated

01.12.2016 and also the oral order of termination dated

30.11.2013. Such an opportunity is to be granted to the

appellant as his appointment as lab attendant and also his

promotion as junior clerk were duly approved by the District

Education Officer. In view of the approval granted by the

District Education Officer both for lab attendant and as junior

clerk, the appellant must be given an opportunity to challenge

the order of termination by the respondent-Institution or

otherwise the appellant will be subjected to great hardship.

(12) In the result, the impugned order of the High Court is set

aside and this appeal is allowed.

(13) Consequently, Appeal NO(s).75/2016 and 1/2017 pending

before the School Tribunal shall stand restored to the file of

the School Tribunal which shall afford sufficient opportunity

to both the parties and proceed with the appeals and dispose of

the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within

a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this

Order. All contentions raised by the parties are left open to

be raised before the School Tribunal.

..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 4, 2019.