Gramin Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Secretary Ramesh H. Wadekar vs Rajendra Vasant Zope And Anr

CNR No : HCBM010261262021

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9030 OF 2021
Gramin Shikshan Sanstha, through
it’s Secretary Ramesh H. Wadekar
… Petitioner
Vs.
ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
1. Rajendra Vasant Zope
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.10.27
12:11:16 +0530
2. The Deputy Director of Education
… Respondents
Mr. Mayuresh D. Modgi for the Petitioner.
Mr. F.A. Wasif with Mr. Parag Zope for Respondent
No.1.
Mrs. V.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent No.2-State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 19, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 27, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The Petitioner-institution has filed this Petition challenging
the judgment and order dated 25 March 2021 passed by the
School Tribunal. By this order, the termination of Respondent No.
1 dated 3 February 2020 was set aside. This was the fourth time
that Respondent No. 1 was terminated from service. Even the
earlier termination orders were challenged by him before the
School Tribunal and those orders were set aside. The present
1
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
Petition was dismissed for default on 6 March 2026. Thereafter,
the Interim Application filed by the Petitioner for restoring the
Petition was allowed on 5 October 2026. Therefore, the Petition is
now required to be considered and decided on merits.
2. The Petitioner, Gramin Shikshan Sanstha English High
School and Junior College, is questioning the appointment,
termination and reinstatement of Respondent No. 1, Rajendra
Vasant Zope. The dispute has continued for several years and has
resulted in proceedings before the School Tribunal and this Court
on different occasions. Respondent No. 1 was appointed on 3
August 1995. His appointment was approved by the Deputy
Director of Education, Nashik, on 3 September 1997. A approval
was granted on 10 August 1998. Thereafter, probation orders were
issued on 5 September 1997 and 13 June 1998.
3. On 23 July 1999, Respondent No. 1 was terminated from
service for the first time. He challenged the termination before the
School Tribunal. By an order dated 7 June 2002, the School
Tribunal set aside the termination. The said order was challenged
before this Court in Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2002 on 2 August
2002. The Respondent No. 1 was reinstated in service on 6 July
2002 after the first termination. The Management filed
Miscellaneous Application No. 02 of 2022 on 14 September 2022,
seeking recall and setting aside of the order dated 7 June 2002
passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 1999. The School
Tribunal rejected the application. The Management challenged the
said rejection before this Court on 19 July 2024. The challenge
was refused. Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2002 was dismissed by this
2
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
Court on 1 April 2025. The Review Petition, bearing No. 147 of
2025, was dismissed on 3 September 2026.
4. In the meantime, Respondent No. 1 was again terminated
from service on 1 June 2009. He challenged the second
termination before the School Tribunal. By an order dated 10
December 2009, the School Tribunal set aside the termination. The
Management challenged that order before this Court by filing Writ
Petition No. 1777 of 2010. By a judgment dated 9 July 2010, the
challenge to the order setting aside the second termination was
dismissed. The Respondent No. 1 was reinstated in service on 4
September 2010. The Management filed an application seeking
recall and setting aside of the School Tribunal's order relating to
the second termination. The said application was rejected by the
School Tribunal. The Management challenged the rejection before
this Court. By an order dated 20 March 2025 the challenge was
dismissed.
5. Respondent No. 1 was terminated from service for the third
time on 30 April 2011. He again approached the School Tribunal.
By an order dated 4 June 2012, the School Tribunal set aside the
third termination. The Management challenged that order before
this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6025 of 2012. According to
the list of dates, the said writ petition is pending. Respondent No.
1 was reinstated in service on 27 August 2014. The Management
issued the fourth termination order on 3 February 2020.
Respondent No. 1 challenged the said termination before the
School Tribunal. By an order dated 25 March 2021, the School
Tribunal set aside the termination order.
3
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
6. The Management challenged the said order before this Court
by filing Writ Petition No. 9030 of 2021. The said writ petition was
dismissed for default on 6 March 2026. Respondent No. 1 retired
from service on 28 May 2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an
Interim Application seeking restoration of the writ petition. By an
order dated 5 October 2026, the Interim Application was allowed.
The present proceedings concern the challenge to the order of the
School Tribunal dated 25 March 2021, by which the fourth
termination order dated 3 February 2020 was set aside.
7. Mr. Modgi, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner,
invited my attention to the acknowledgement relied upon by the
School Tribunal to hold that the appeal was duly served upon the
Petitioner-institution on 7 March 2020. He submitted that the
signature appearing on the acknowledgement does not match the
signature of the Secretary of the Petitioner-institution. He
submitted that the impugned order was passed when the
guidelines relating to Covid were in force.
8. Relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in Anna Manikrao Pethe vs. Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal & Othersr, 1998 (4) Bom. C.R. 565, Mr. Modgi submitted
that the School Tribunal was required to frame and decide three
preliminary issues. One of these issues was whether the
appointment of the concerned teacher was made in accordance
with Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1977 and the Rules framed
thereunder, and whether such appointment was approved by the
Education Officer as required under the Act and the Rules. He
4
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
submitted that unless these preliminary issues were framed and
decided, the School Tribunal could not have decided the appeal on
merits, even if the Petitioner had failed to appear before it.
9. Mr. Modgi submitted that the post in question was reserved
for a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category,
whereas Respondent No. 1 belonged to the Other Backward Class
category. According to him, Respondent No. 1 was terminated from
service because of an inconsistency in the certificate produced by
him in support of his appointment to the said post. He submitted
that the Petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the issuance
of the validity certificate in favour of Respondent No. 1. The said
writ petition is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. He
submitted that any order passed in the present petition should be
made subject to the final decision in that writ petition.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Wasif, learned Advocate appearing
for Respondent No. 1, submitted that the impugned judgment and
order was passed on 25 March 2021, by which time the Courts had
resumed their normal functioning after the Covid restrictions. He
submitted that the acknowledgement relied upon by the School
Tribunal was an extract from the register maintained by the post
office. The said extract showed that the notice of the appeal had
been served upon the Petitioner before the onset of Covid, that is,
in the year 2019. Therefore, according to him, the Petitioner was
required to appear before the School Tribunal in 2019 itself. Mr.
Wasif submitted that the School Tribunal had rightly observed that
although Respondent No. 1 was appointed in the year 1999, he
had not received the benefit of his employment for the last 22
5
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
years. He invited my attention to the judgment passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2002,
arising out of the third termination of Respondent No. 1. He
submitted that, while dismissing the said petition, the coordinate
Bench had recorded a clear finding in paragraph 27 that
Respondent No. 1 had acquired deemed confirmation in service.
According to Mr. Wasif, the coordinate Bench had considered the
contentions raised by the Petitioner and decided them against the
Petitioner. He invited my attention to various paragraphs of the
said judgment to show that the relevant issues had been examined
by this Court. He submitted that once Respondent No. 1 had
attained permanency in service after his appointment on
probation, he could not have been removed from service without
holding an enquiry.
11. Mr. Wasif submitted that the coordinate Bench, while
deciding Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2002, had considered the issues
which the School Tribunal was required to examine as preliminary
issues. The Petitioner could not reopen those issues in the present
writ petition. He submitted that Respondent No. 1 had retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation and was
entitled to receive his pensionary and other monetary benefits
from the Petitioner.
12. Mr. Wasif submitted that the notice of the appeal had been
sent to the correct address of the Management. It was for the
Petitioner to establish that the notice had not been served upon it.
He pointed out that the Petitioner had not claimed that the notice
was sent to an incorrect address. According to him, when notice is
6
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
sent to the correct address, service can be presumed unless the
contrary is established. He submitted that no interference with the
impugned judgment and order was called for and that the writ
petition was liable to be dismissed.
REASONS AND FINDINGS:
13. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Modgi,
learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, and Mr. Wasif,
learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1. The main
objections raised by the Petitioner relate to service of notice before
the School Tribunal, the effect of Covid restrictions, the need to
frame and decide preliminary issues before considering the appeal
on merits, the nature of appointment of Respondent No. 1 and the
dispute about his caste certificate. On the other hand, Mr. Wasif
opposed the Petition by relying on the earlier judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2002. He relied on the earlier
orders by which the termination of Respondent No. 1 was set
aside. He pointed out that Respondent No. 1 has retired from
service.
14. The first question which requires consideration is whether
the Petitioner has shown that the notice of the appeal was not
properly served upon it before the School Tribunal. Mr. Modgi
submitted that the acknowledgement relied upon by the School
Tribunal for holding that notice was served upon the Petitioner-
institution on 7 March 2020 contains a signature which "does not
tally with the signature of the Secretary of the Petitioner-
institution." He submitted that the School Tribunal passed the
7
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
impugned order at a time when the guidelines relating to Covid
were in force. The objection about the acknowledgement has to be
considered along with the submission made by Mr. Wasif. He
submitted that the acknowledgement was an extract from the
register maintained by the post office. According to him, the record
showed that the notice of the appeal was served upon the
Petitioner before the Covid restrictions started. There is some
difference between the parties about the date of service. Mr. Modgi
referred to the acknowledgement dated 7 March 2020, whereas
Mr. Wasif submitted that the notice was served in the year 2019
itself. However, both sides refer to the notice having been sent to
the address of the Management. The question is whether the
Petitioner has shown that the notice was not served upon it and
because of this it could not appear before the School Tribunal.
15. The Petitioner has not stated that the notice was sent to a
wrong address. Its objection is only that the signature on the
acknowledgement is not the signature of its Secretary. This fact
does not show that the institution had not received the notice. It is
not necessary that only the Secretary can receive postal articles on
behalf of the institution. If the Petitioner wanted to show that the
acknowledgement was false or that the notice was never received,
it was necessary to produce some material in support of such
claim. No such material has been pointed out before me. The mere
difference between the signature appearing on the
acknowledgement and the signature of the Secretary is not enough
to hold that the postal record is false. The School Tribunal was
entitled to look at the postal record while deciding whether the
8
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
notice had been served. In the absence of any material showing
that the notice was sent to a wrong address or was otherwise not
received by the institution, I am unable to accept the submission of
the Petitioner that the finding regarding service recorded by the
School Tribunal is wrong.
16. The submission based on Covid restrictions does not give me
any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned
judgment is dated 25 March 2021. It is true that Covid affected the
working of Courts and other institutions during that period. But
only because the order was passed during the Covid period, it
cannot be said that the Petitioner was prevented from appearing
before the School Tribunal. What is required to be seen is whether
the Petitioner was served with notice and whether it has shown
that some circumstances beyond its control prevented it from
taking part in the proceedings. In the present case, the notice is
stated to have been delivered at the correct address. The Petitioner
has not shown that it informed the School Tribunal about any
difficulty in appearing before it. It has not shown that it made any
request for giving it some accommodation and that such request
was rejected. No particular circumstance has been brought to my
notice to show that the Petitioner could not take part in the
proceedings because of the restrictions. Therefore, a general
reference to Covid restrictions is not enough to set aside the
impugned judgment.
17. The next submission of Mr. Modgi is about the requirement
of framing and deciding preliminary issues. He relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Anna Manikrao
9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
Pethe . In paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the Division Bench
observed that while deciding an appeal under Section 9 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977, the School Tribunal is required to frame and
decide three preliminary issues. These issues are about whether
the school is a recognised school under the Act, whether the
appointment of the teacher was made according to Section 5 of the
Act and the Rules, and whether the appointment was approved by
the Education Officer as required under the Act, the Rules and the
applicable Government Resolutions regarding reservation. The
Division Bench observed:
“These preliminary points are required to be framed and
decided before the appeal proceeds on merits, and even if
such points are not raised by any of the parties to the appeal,
it would be proper on the part of the Tribunal to frame such
issues suo motu before examining the merits of the case.”
18. The principle stated by the Division Bench is clear. The
School Tribunal cannot ignore the questions about the validity of
the appointment and the required approval only because the
Management has not raised these questions. However, this
principle has to be considered by keeping in mind the facts of the
present case and the earlier decisions regarding the appointment
of Respondent No. 1.
19. The record before me shows that the appointment of
Respondent No. 1 and his position in service have been examined
in detail by the School Tribunal and this Court in earlier
proceedings. In this regard, the judgment in Writ Petition No. 6022
of 2002, decided on 1 April 2025, is important. It is necessary to
10
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
clarify one part of the submission made by Mr. Wasif. He referred
to the said judgment as arising from the third termination of
Respondent No. 1. However, after going through the judgment, I
find that this description is not correct. The said Petition was filed
by Mrs. Sangeeta J. Shinde, who challenged the order dated 7
June 2002 passed by the School Tribunal. By that order, the
termination of Respondent No. 1 was set aside and his
reinstatement was directed with continuity of service and
consequential benefits, but without back wages. Therefore, the
earlier proceedings related to the termination challenged before
the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 90 of 1999. This clarification
does not reduce the importance of the findings recorded by this
Court about the appointment and service status of Respondent No.
1. In the judgment dated 1 April 2025, this Court considered the
appointment orders issued to Respondent No. 1, the approvals
given by the education authorities, the circumstances in which he
continued in service and the objections raised by the Management
about his caste category and the absence of an advertisement.
Paragraph 16 of that judgment records that the appointment order
dated 5 August 1997 mentioned probation. The Court noticed that
the Secretary of the Management had signed the said appointment
order along with the Headmistress. The later appointment order
dated 13 June 1998 mentioned probation. In paragraph 18, the
Court considered the approvals given by the education authorities
for different academic years. These included the approvals dated
26 August 1996, 29 March 1997, 3 September 1997 and 10 August
1998. The Court found that the appointment of Respondent No. 1
11
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
had been sent for approval from time to time and that the
approvals were granted. These findings are important because the
Petitioner now wants to question the service status of the same
employee whose appointment and continuation in service have
been considered by this Court.
20. The earlier judgment considered the objection that no
advertisement had been issued when Respondent No. 1 was first
appointed and that he had not been appointed against the
category of post which, according to the Management, was vacant.
In paragraphs 20 to 22, this Court examined the findings of the
School Tribunal on these questions. Paragraph 22 records that the
school leaving certificate of Respondent No. 1 did not show that he
belonged to the Other Backward Class category. However, a caste
certificate had been issued in his name showing that he belonged
to the Leva Patil caste, which was identified as an Other Backward
Class. The Court considered the submission of the Management
that the available vacancy was reserved for the Nomadic Tribe
category and that Respondent No. 1 could not be appointed
against such a post.
21. After considering the submissions of both sides, the Court
observed that the School Tribunal had taken a possible view on the
material before it. The Tribunal had found that there was an Other
Backward Class vacancy and that Respondent No. 1 was appointed
against that vacancy. This Court did not interfere with that finding
while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the question about the category of
the post and the appointment of Respondent No. 1 was not left
12
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
completely undecided in the earlier proceedings. It was considered
on the basis of the records which were then available. The
Management cannot now proceed on the assumption that these
questions have never been examined by a Court.
22. The most important finding in the earlier judgment is
recorded in paragraph 27. The Court observed:
“Respondent No.1 was continued for four academic years.
His services were put on probation during the course of third
academic year w\.e.f. 13 June 1997. He has worked on
probation till 2 May 1999 and has thus completed the period
of probation prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1977.”
23. After considering the relevant provision, this Court held:
“I am therefore of the view that the Tribunal has rightly
arrived at a conclusion that Respondent No.1 acquired
deemed confirmation in service.”
24. This was a clear finding about the service status of
Respondent No. 1. It was not an observation made without looking
at the relevant material. The Court considered the appointment
orders and the period of probation. Thereafter, it accepted the
finding of the School Tribunal that Respondent No. 1 had acquired
deemed confirmation in service. In paragraph 28, the Court held
that the view taken by the School Tribunal was a possible view and
that there was no reason to interfere with it. Finally, the Petition
was disposed of and the Rule was discharged by the judgment
dated 1 April 2025.
13
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
25. The Management was represented in those proceedings. Its
objections regarding the appointment, reservation category,
absence of advertisement and deemed confirmation were
considered. The fact that the earlier Petition was filed by another
employee does not allow the Management to ignore the findings
recorded after hearing the parties on these questions. It is true that
the present Petition challenges a later termination order dated 3
February 2020, whereas the earlier proceedings were about the
termination which took place in 1999. Therefore, the cause of
action in both proceedings is different. However, the legal status of
Respondent No. 1, as found in the earlier judgment, is relevant for
deciding whether his services could be terminated in 2020. The
Management cannot reopen the entire question of deemed
confirmation only because a later termination order has resulted in
a fresh proceeding. The earlier judgment may not decide every
question relating to the fourth termination, but its findings about
the appointment and deemed confirmation of Respondent No. 1
cannot be ignored.
26. I have considered the submission that the original post was
reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category,
whereas Respondent No. 1 belonged to the Other Backward Class
category. The earlier judgment records a somewhat different
position. It refers to an advertisement dated 2 June 1999 for filling
a post in the Scheduled Tribe or Nomadic Tribe categories. It
records the earlier contention of the Management that the vacancy
was available in the Nomadic Tribe category. This difference about
the description of the reserved category is important. The material
14
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
before me does not give a clear basis to accept the Petitioner's
present description of the post as one reserved for the Scheduled
Caste category. More importantly, the question about the
reservation category was considered in the earlier proceedings,
and this Court did not find sufficient reason to disturb the view
taken by the School Tribunal. The Petitioner cannot succeed only
by repeating a contention which has been considered and rejected.
It must show some new fact or circumstance which would justify
taking a different view in the present case. No such material has
been shown.
27. Mr. Modgi submitted that Respondent No. 1 was terminated
because an inconsistent certificate had been produced in support
of his appointment. He submitted that the Petitioner has filed a
separate writ petition before the Division Bench challenging the
issuance of the caste validity certificate in favour of Respondent
No. 1. He requested that any order passed in the present Petition
should be subject to the decision in that proceeding. This
submission requires separate consideration. The earlier judgment
in Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2002 took note of the difference
between the school leaving certificate and the caste certificate of
Respondent No. 1. It considered the objection of the Management
about the category of the available post. Even after considering
these objections, the Court found that the School Tribunal had
taken a possible view on the material before it. The mere fact that
a separate writ petition challenging the caste validity certificate is
pending does not prove that the certificate is false or that
Respondent No. 1 obtained his appointment by fraud. No final
15
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
order invalidating the caste validity certificate has been shown to
me in the present proceedings. In the absence of such a decision,
the pending challenge cannot be treated as proof of the allegation
made by the Management. The validity of the certificate must be
decided in the proceeding where it has been challenged. It would
not be proper for me to hold in the present Petition that the
certificate is false when the proceeding about its validity is still
pending.
28. The earlier finding that Respondent No. 1 had acquired
deemed confirmation is important while considering the manner in
which his services could be terminated. A teacher who has
acquired such status cannot be treated as a temporary employee
whose services can be ended merely according to the choice of the
Management. If the Management alleges that an employee
obtained employment on the basis of a false document, it must
establish the facts needed to support that allegation and act
according to the applicable law. The allegation about an
inconsistent certificate is not enough to establish that the
employee has lost his right to service. In the present case, the
Management relies upon the pending challenge to the caste
validity certificate, but no final decision invalidating the certificate
has been brought to my notice.
29. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept that the fourth
termination of Respondent No. 1 can be upheld only because the
Management has questioned his caste certificate before another
Court. The result of that proceeding must be left to the Court
which is considering the validity of the certificate. The present
16
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
Petition has to be decided on the material and findings available
before me.
30. The Petitioner has relied upon the requirement of deciding
preliminary issues laid down in Anna Manikrao Pethe . This
requirement is important, and the School Tribunal must follow it
in proper cases. However, the present dispute cannot be decided
only by seeing whether separate preliminary issues were framed in
the proceedings relating to the fourth termination. The important
question is whether the matters which were required to be
considered as preliminary issues remain undecided and whether
the Petitioner has suffered any prejudice which requires the
impugned order to be set aside.
31. In the present case, the appointment of Respondent No. 1,
the approvals given by the education authorities, the relevant
reservation category and his deemed confirmation have been
examined in detail in earlier proceedings. The finding about
deemed confirmation was recorded by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 6022 of 2002. The Petitioner has not shown any fresh material
which would justify reopening these findings. In such
circumstances, setting aside the impugned order only to have the
same questions examined once again would not serve any useful
purpose. It would cause delay in a dispute which has continued for
many years despite the earlier decisions of the School Tribunal and
this Court.
32. The history of the dispute needs to be considered. The list of
dates placed before this Court shows that Respondent No. 1 was
17
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
first terminated on 23 July 1999. The School Tribunal set aside
that termination on 7 June 2002. The second termination, dated 1
June 2009, was set aside by the School Tribunal on 10 December
2009. The third termination, dated 30 April 2011, was set aside by
the School Tribunal on 4 June 2012. The fourth termination, dated
3 February 2020, was set aside by the School Tribunal on 25
March 2021. The fact that Respondent No. 1 has repeatedly
approached the School Tribunal does not mean that the present
Petition must be decided in his favour. Every termination has to be
considered on its own facts and according to law. However, the
repeated setting aside of the termination orders is a relevant
circumstance. It shows that the Management has not been able to
sustain its earlier termination decisions before the School Tribunal.
The record shows that the earlier proceedings resulted in a finding
that Respondent No. 1 had acquired deemed confirmation in
service. Unless that finding is displaced according to law, the
Management cannot treat Respondent No. 1 as an employee whose
services could be terminated without following the legal
requirements applicable to a confirmed teacher.
33. Respondent No. 1 has retired from service on 28 May 2023.
This fact is relevant while considering what relief should be
granted. In the earlier judgment in Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2002,
this Court took note of the fact that Respondent No. 1 had
continued in service for several years and had crossed the age of
retirement. Paragraph 23 records that he was waiting for payment
of pensionary benefits. In paragraph 27, the Court accepted the
finding that Respondent No. 1 had acquired deemed confirmation
18
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
in service. The present Petition concerns a later termination. Even
so, the long period during which Respondent No. 1 has remained
involved in service litigation cannot be ignored. His retirement
does not make the present Petition meaningless, because the
challenge to the termination order affects his service record and
the monetary and pensionary benefits, if any, payable to him under
the applicable rules. At the same time, the Management is entitled
to have its separate challenge to the caste validity certificate
decided according to law. Therefore, dismissal of the present
Petition should not be treated as a final decision on the validity of
that certificate. The Court dealing with that issue will decide it on
the basis of the record and merits of that proceeding.
34. Considering all these circumstances together, I find no
reason to set aside the order passed by the School Tribunal.
35. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and
order dated 25 March 2021 passed by the School Tribunal, setting
aside the termination of Respondent No. 1 dated 3 February 2020,
is maintained.
36. The question regarding the validity of the caste validity
certificate shall be governed by the final decision in the separate
writ petition in which it is under challenge. The present judgment
shall not be treated as a finding that the caste validity certificate is
either false or invalid.
37. The Petitioner shall within four weeks take the necessary
steps to determine and release the service and retirement benefits
admissible to Respondent No. 1 according to the applicable rules
19
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

wp9030-2021-JF.doc
and the consequences of the School Tribunal's order. This shall be
subject to the final decision in the pending proceedings concerning
the caste validity certificate and any other adjustment permitted by
law.
38. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
20
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)