SHUBHAM BAHUUDDESHIYA SANSTHA, WADDHAMANA &ANR. versus SHRI DNYANESHWAR GOVINDRAO DAIGAVHANE & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 17-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 367 
SHUBHAM BAHUUDDESHIYA SANSTHA, WADDHAMANA 
A 
&ANR. 
v. 
SHRI DNYANESHWAR GOVINDRAO DAIGAVHANE & ORS. 
(CivilAppea!No.9161 of2017) 
JULY 17, 2017 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] . 
Service law: Termination - Charges levelled against school 
, teacher-respondent no.I - S.aid c~arges upheld by the Inquiry 
C 
Committee - School Management concurred with the Committee 
Report and terminated the services of respondent no. I ~ In appeal, 
the School tribunal upheld the termination order - During pendency 
of the writ petition, dispute between two rival groups of Management 
Committee wherein one supporting respondents termination and 
other filed intervention application making a statement of cancelling D 
the termination order and reinstating respondent no. 1 - High Court 
on basis of the statement, cancelled the termination order of 
respondent no. 1 and permitted him to withdraw the writ petition -
Held: There being a split between the Members of the Managing 
Committee, the High Court should not have accepted the stand of E 
one group and should have proceeded to decide the writ petition 
on its merits, the legality of the tribunals order - Manner, reasoning 
and the conclusion of the High Court, cannot be concurred with 
and is set aside - Writ petition is revived for being heard on merits 
in accordance with law - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools 
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The disputes which had surfaced in the 
meantime between two rival groups of Management Committee 
in regard to managing the affairs of the School wherein one group 
was supporting respondent No.1 's termination and the other group 
G 
opposing the termination should not have been taken note of 
much less relied on by the writ court for disposal of the writ-
petition nor these facts, could be made subject matter of writ 
petition filed by respondent No.1-they being wholly irrelevant 
for deciding the lis involved in the writ petition. Had there been H 
367 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 6 S.C.R. 
A unanimity between the Members of the Managing Committee of 
the School resolving to settle the issue with respondent No.I 
amicably on terms agreed upon then perhaps, compromise 
between respondent No.I on the one hand and the Management 
of School on the other would have been permissible subject to 
.B 
c 
D 
.E 
F 
G 
H 
obtaining of any sanction from the authorities, if provided under 
the Rules for giving effect to it. However, such was not the case. 
There is a split between the Members of the Managing 
Committee - one group saying that there should be a compromise 
with respondent No.I and the other group saying that there should 
be not be a compromise with respondent No.I. In such situation, 
the High Court should not have accepted the stand of one group 
and should have proceeded to decide the writ petition on its merits 
regardless of the differences between the Management with a 
view to find out as to whether the order of the Tribunal impugned 
by respondent No.I is legally sustainable or not. [Para I9-22) 
[372-E-H ; 373-A-B] 
1.2 In view thereof, the manner, reasoning and the 
conclusion of the High Court, which on the one hand allowed 
respondent No.I to withdraw his writ petition and on the other 
hand proceeded to set aside the order of the School Tribunal 
without examining its legality and correctness on merits and at 
the same time proceeded to set aside the termination order also 
by accepting the statement of one group of Management, cannot 
be concurred with. The impugned order is set aside and the writ 
petition filed by respondent No.I is revived for being heard on 
merits in accordance with law [Para 23, 24) [373-C-D) 
CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9161 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition 
No. 1958 of2015. 
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Amo! B. Karande, Adv. for the 
Appellants. 
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Kishor 
Lambat, Sachin Pahwa (for Mis Lambat And Associates), Suvendu 
Suvasis Dash, Ms.Swati Vaibhav, Advs. for the Respondents. 
SHUBHAM B. SANSTHA, WADDHAMANA v. DNYANESHWAR G. 
369 
DAIGAVHANE 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 
16.03.2017 pass

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