Kisan Shirke Vs. Koyana Education Society & Ors.  INSC 1727 (12
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7542 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No.24654 of 2008) Prakash Kisan Shirke ...Appellant(s) Versus Koyana Education
Society and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
appeal is directed against the order dated 30th June, 2008, passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in L.P.A. No.120 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.4166
facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, are
recapitulated as under:
appellant was appointed as a Clerk by order dated 13th October, 1993, wherein
it has been clearly indicated that his appointment was made on probation for a
period of two years against a clear permanent vacancy. The appellant
satisfactorily completed the probation period and was confirmed in that post.
appellant's services were terminated by order dated 6th November, 1995. The
appellant challenged the order of termination before the School Tribunal,
Kolhapur. The Tribunal, by its order dated 26th June, 1997, held the order of
termination as illegal, ineffective and initio void and quashed the same. The
respondents herein, aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal, filed a
writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned
Single Judge examined the matter in detail and dismissed the writ petition
upholding the judgment of the Tribunal. The respondents, aggrieved by the said
judgment of the learned Single Judge preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before
the High Court. The Division Bench, without analyzing the findings of the
Tribunal, which were upheld by the learned Single Judge, set aside the order of
the learned Single Judge and remanded the case to the learned Single Judge. The
appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, has approached this
Court by way of this appeal.
Court issued notice on 14th November, 2008, and stayed the operation of the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
opportunity, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgments of
the Tribunal, learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. In our considered
view, the Division Bench was not justified in setting aside the judgment of the
learned Single Judge and remitting the matter back to the learned Single Judge.
In our view, the learned Single Judge has correctly upheld the judgment of the
Tribunal upon examining the matter in detail. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, ends of justice would be met if the appellant is reinstated in
service forthwith. We order accordingly. He would also be entitled to back
wages calculated at the rate of twenty five per cent, which shall be paid to
him within two months from today.
appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [DALVEER BHANDARI]
......................J. [DR. MUKUNDAKARM SHARMA]
November 12, 2009.