- (1.) BY the present writ petition under Article 226, 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur in Appeal No.6/2008, dated 15/09/2008.
(2.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. The factual matrix which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as follows : It is alleged by the respondent no.1, who is appellant before the School Tribunal in Appeal No.6/2008 that being aggrieved by the alleged termination of the services dated 30/04/2006, he had approached by way of appeal u/s. 9 of The M.E.P.S. (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and rules of 1981 - Thereunder in which the present petitioners and respondent no.2 and 3 were arrayed as the respondents. In that appeal, it was prayed to declare that his services were illegally terminated on 30/04/2006 and he may be re-instated in the service with the continuity of the service and entitled for full backwages and to pass the necessary reliefs. The said appeal was contested by the petitioners herein by alleging that the first respondent was initially appointed vide appointment order dated 15/07/2003 purely on temporary basis for the period of one year on the lumsum payment of Rs.500/- p.m. This service was terminated vide order dated 31/03/2004 w.e.f. 30/04/2004. Thereafter, again the first respondent was appointed for the period of one year from 02/06/2004 to 31/04/2005 vide order dated 03/06/2004 purely on temporary basis and this service was also terminated vide termination notice dated 31/03/2005. Thereafter, the first respondent was never appointed in the school of petitioners and no question arises that he was in the service of petitioners during the academic year 2005-06 and hence further no question arises that his services will be discontinued/ terminated vide alleged termination order dated 30/04/2006. Considering the documents tendered before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and the affidavits filed by the parties and after hearing the submissions across the bar vide his order dated 15/09/2008, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the termination order dated 30/04/2006. The petitioners were directed to continue the services of the first respondent with full back wages which is the order under challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) IT appears that at the initial stage, the order was passed to call for the record and proceeding from the School Tribunal and accordingly the record and proceeding was called. During the course of arguments, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners taken me through the entire file received from the office of School Tribunal. He drawn my attention towards the pleadings of the parties in that appeal as well as the issues framed. Even though it is specific case made out by the first respondent appellant before the school Tribunal that he was appointed on probation period for 2 years and was in continuous service of 3 years, and in this respect no proper issue was framed whether the appointment of the first respondent was on purely temporary basis or was on the permanent and vacant post. Apart from the fact that the proper issues were not framed, he also drawn my attention towards the conclusion drawn on the basis of the observation of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal on the issues framed in which the appointment order on record was not discussed in the light of provisions u/s. 5 and section 11 of The M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 and under Rule 9 of the rules of 1981 which governs the appointment of the employees in the private school, but governed under the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 as well as Rules of year 1981. At the same time in the appeal before the School Tribunal, there was a challenge to the alleged illegal termination of the first respondent vide order dated 30/04/2006. No doubt, the issue was framed to that effect by the School Tribunal, but so far as the reasoning part is concerned, no discussion is found as to how the alleged order of termination is illegal or legal. If the proper issues are not framed for the adjudication of the dispute and the reasoning recorded is a cursory reasoning without considering the documents on record, then such orders are bad orders in the eye of law, which require to be quashed and set aside.;