Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions filed by the management of Mahatma Phule Education Society and Mahatma Phule Vidyalaya challenging three interlocutory orders passed by the School Tribunal, Latur, in Appeal No.20/2015 filed by the employee, Babu Nagappa Phulari. The employee claimed that he was being prevented from signing the muster roll and discharging his duties since 2013, and had sent numerous representations. The School Tribunal had earlier rejected his interim relief application, which led to Writ Petition No.11714/2015. In that petition, the High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously. Subsequently, the Tribunal passed orders on applications Exhibits 51, 59, and 61 granting interim relief to the employee. The management challenged these orders in the present petitions. The High Court heard the submissions of all parties. The court noted that the main appeal was at the final stage and that the management had been filing multiple writ petitions against interlocutory orders, which was deprecated. The court held that the School Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interim relief and that the High Court should not interfere with such orders when the appeal is pending. The petitions were dismissed with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the appeal within six months.
Headnote
A) Education Law - School Tribunal - Interim Relief - Jurisdiction - The School Tribunal has the power to grant interim relief under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The Tribunal's orders granting interim relief to the employee were upheld as being within its jurisdiction (Paras 5-7).
B) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - The High Court should not entertain writ petitions challenging interlocutory orders when the main appeal is pending before the School Tribunal, as it would amount to circumventing the statutory remedy - The management's repeated filing of writ petitions was deprecated (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere with interlocutory orders passed by the School Tribunal when the main appeal is pending and the management has filed multiple writ petitions challenging such orders.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The School Tribunal is directed to decide Appeal No.20/2015 on its own merits within six months from the date of this order. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of School Tribunal to grant interim relief
- Maintainability of writ petitions against interlocutory orders
- Principle of not interfering with ongoing proceedings before statutory tribunals
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 190
Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2016 with Writ Petition No.12143 of 2016
Shri V.D.Salunke h/f Shri Gunale V.D. for Petitioners, Shri M.V.Ghatge for Respondent No.1, Shri S.P.Sonpawale AGP for Respondents 2 and 3
The President, Mahatma Phule Education Society, Parbhani and The Headmaster, Mahatma Phule Vidyalaya, Parbhani
Babu Nagappa Phulari, The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging interlocutory orders of the School Tribunal granting interim relief to the employee in a pending appeal.
Remedy Sought
The management sought to quash the orders dated 16.07.2016, 06.10.2016 passed by the School Tribunal on applications Exhibits 51, 59, and 61 in Appeal No.20/2015.
Filing Reason
The management was aggrieved by the School Tribunal granting interim relief to the employee, which they believed was without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the employee had filed Writ Petition No.11714/2015 challenging the rejection of his interim relief application, and the High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interim relief?
Whether the High Court should interfere with interlocutory orders when the main appeal is pending?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/Management argued that the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief and that the orders were illegal.
Respondent/Employee argued that the Tribunal has inherent power to grant interim relief and that the management was trying to delay the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The School Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interim relief in appeals pending before it. The High Court should not entertain writ petitions against interlocutory orders when the main appeal is pending, as it would circumvent the statutory remedy and delay proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
I have heard the strenuous submissions of Shri Salunke, learned Advocate for the Petitioner/ Management, Shri Ghatge, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1/ original Appellant and the learned AGP on behalf of the State/ Education Department authorities.
These litigating sides had been before this Court earlier in Writ Petition No.11714/2015 filed by Respondent No.1 upon being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for interim relief Exhibit5 by order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the School Tribunal.
Procedural History
The employee filed Appeal No.20/2015 before the School Tribunal, Latur. The Tribunal rejected his interim relief application on 09.10.2015. The employee challenged that order in Writ Petition No.11714/2015, which was disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously. Subsequently, the Tribunal passed orders on 16.07.2016 and 06.10.2016 granting interim relief. The management filed the present writ petitions challenging those orders.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
