M. S. KAZI versus MUSLIM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 22-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016J4 S.C.R. 80 
M. S. KAZI 
v. 
MUSLIM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11976-11977 of2014) 
AUGUST 22, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. 
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Constitution of India -Arts. 226 and 227 - Proceedings under, 
maintainability - Whether Tribunal 1vhose order challenged in the 
writ proceedings. necessw:r party to the proceedings - In the instant 
case, appellant an Assistant Teacher, challenged his dismissal from 
service before the Tribunal - Tribunal dismissed the application -
Single Judge of High Court in a petition by appellant under Arts. 
226 and 227 upheld the dismissal on merits - In LPA, the Division 
Bench held the appeal to be not maintainable in absence of 
impleadment of the Tribunal in the writ proceedings - Held: Before 
the Tribunal, the legality of the order of dismissal of appellant was 
in question - Tribunal having upheld the dismissal, the la11fulness 
of the punishment imposed upon the appellant was a matter for the 
employer to defend against a challenge of illegality in the writ 
proceedings u/Arts. 226 and 227 - Therefore, the /is was between 
the management and a member of its teaching staff - Hence, the 
Tribunal was not required to defend its own order in the writ 
proceedings u!Arts. 226 and 227 and thus was not a necessary 
party - Judgment of Division Bench set aside, LPA restored for 
disposal on merits - Since the charge sheet was issued J.I years 
ago, High Court to endeavour an expeditious disposal - Gujarat 
Secondary Education Act, 1972 - ss. 31, 36, 38, 39 - Party -
Necessary party - Service law. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 was 
enacted by the State legislature for the regulation of secondary 
education in the State. Section 39 provides for the constitution of 
a tribunal. Section 38 confers upon the tribunal the jurisdiction 
to decide certain disputes. The tribunal was constituted both as 
an original and an appellate adjudicating forum: an original forum 
80 
M. S. KAZI 
v. MUSLIM EDUCATION SOCIETY 
81 
to decide disputes under Section 38 (1) and an appellate forum 
A 
under Section 39(5). [Para 7) [84-D-E : 85-D) 
Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of G11jarat and 
Ors. 2015 (6) SCR 504: (2015) 9 SCC 1- relied on. 
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Firoze M 
Moga! & Anr. 2014 GLH 1 - referred to. 
2.1. The tribunal was not required to defend its orders when 
challenged before the High Court in a Special Civil Application 
under Articles 226 and 227. The /is was between the management 
and a member of its teaching or non-teaching staff, as the case 
may be. It is for the person aggrieved to pursue his or her 
remedies before the tribunal. An order of the tribunal is capable 
of being tested in exercise of the power of judicial review under 
Articles 226 and 227. When the remedy is invoked, the tribunal 
is not required to step into arena of conflict for defending its 
order. Hence, the tribunal was not a necessary party to the 
proceedings in a Special Civil Application. [Para 8) (85-E-F] 
2.2. The appellant instituted a proceeding before the tribunal 
to challenge an order of dismissal passed against him in 
disciplinary proceedings. Before the tribunal, the legality of the 
order of dismissal was in question; The lawfulness of the 
punishment imposed upon the Appellant was a matter for the 
employer to defend against a challenge of illegality in the Special 
Civil Application. The tribunal was not required to tlefend its 
order in the writ proceedings before the Single Judge. Even if 
the High Court was to require the production of the record before 
the tribunal, there was no necessity of impleacJing the tribunal as 
a party to the proceedings. The tribunal not being reql!ired in 
law to defend its own order, the proceedings under Articles 226 
and 227 of the Constitution were maintainable without the tribunal 
being impleaded. [Para 9) (85-G-H; 86-A] 
2014 GLH 1 
2015 (6) SCR 504 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
relied on 
Para 5 
Para6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 11976-
11977 of2014. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.2012 of the High Court 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad rendered in Special Civil Application No. 20747 
of2006. 
C. George Thomas, Ejaz MaqbooL Advs. for the Appellant. 
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Kabir Hathi, Ms. Shikha Sand

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.