The High Court held that denying reinstatement to an employee based only on non-filing of the original termination letter, where all similarly placed employees were reinstated, is unsustainable. This judgment reaffirms established principles of individual justice and non-discriminatory procedural application in educational service law, serving as binding precedent for School Tribunal appeals across Maharashtra.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WP/4135/2022 of SANKET KISHORRAO TAGALPALLEWAR Vs JANTA SIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, PUSAD, THR. PRESIDENT AND OTHERS CNR HCBM040113542022 |
| Date of Registration | 21-07-2022 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT WASUDEO JOSHI |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Nagpur Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on School Tribunals and subordinate courts in Maharashtra |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms relief granted in companion appeals; quashes School Tribunal dismissal |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether an employee’s appeal can be denied solely on the ground of non-filing of the original termination order when companion cases with identical facts are allowed. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that, where 28 other identically situated employees were reinstated by the School Tribunal (and such relief was affirmed in writ and SLP proceedings), dismissing another employee’s appeal solely for non-filing of the original order of termination is unsustainable in law. The same parity should be maintained, especially in absence of any rebuttal by the employer and where the factual matrix is identical. Procedural technicalities cannot defeat substantive justice where the facts and circumstances are indistinguishable from companion cases. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Writ Petition No.641/2023 (Bombay High Court); outcome of SLP and review consideration per order dated 26/02/2024 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Parity in relief for identically situated employees; importance of not allowing procedural technicalities to subvert substantive justice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner’s service was terminated along with 28 others due to “deemed closure”. All others’ appeals were allowed, but the petitioner’s was dismissed for non-filing of the original termination order. The petitioner affirmed he was not gainfully employed. No rebuttal or appearance was made by management in High Court proceedings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, School Tribunals, and educational institutions within Maharashtra |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering parity of relief and procedural fairness in service matters |
| Follows | Relief principles established in Writ Petition No.641/2023 (Bombay High Court); SLP outcome; Review order dated 26/02/2024 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Parity must be maintained in granting relief to employees terminated under identical circumstances by the same employer, regardless of technical procedural deficiencies like non-filing of the original termination order.
- Procedural lapses, especially where facts are uncontested and companion cases have been allowed, should not defeat substantive justice.
- Where the employer does not contest the claim of non-employment or respond to notices, the Court is likely to grant full back wages and continuity of service.
- This judgment can be cited as a binding authority in educational service disputes concerning group terminations and procedural denials before the School Tribunal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the petitioner’s dismissal arose from the same act and circumstances as 28 other employees who were already reinstated, with their relief affirmed in previous writ and SLP proceedings.
- The only basis for dismissing the petitioner’s appeal was his failure to file the original termination order.
- The petitioner produced an affidavit asserting unemployment, which was uncontested.
- The Court emphasized that, in the absence of rebuttal by the employer and given that parity was maintained for all similarly situated employees, denying relief to one on a mere procedural ground is contrary to law and justice.
- The Court expressly adopted the principle that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of substantive identical relief in service law, especially where rights and factual matrix are identical.
- The impugned order of the School Tribunal was set aside, appeal allowed, termination quashed, and full relief (reinstatement, continuity, back wages) awarded.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Termination arose from the management’s decision after the college was placed under “no admission category,” amounting to deemed closure, affecting 29 employees identically.
- All other employees’ appeals were allowed, and relief was granted and upheld in higher forums.
- Dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal was solely on the procedural ground of not filing the original termination order.
- Petitioner filed an uncontested affidavit of non-gainful employment.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
- No appearance or arguments presented.
Factual Background
The case concerns termination of 29 employees, including the petitioner, following the assignment of the college to the “no admission category,” which the management treated as a deemed closure. While all other similarly situated employees were reinstated with full benefits by the School Tribunal, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed only for not filing the original termination order. The dismissal was affirmed by the lower tribunal despite parity in all key facts. The petitioner sought redress via writ petition, supported by an uncontested affidavit that he was not gainfully employed since the termination.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment turns on the application of procedural fairness principles in appeals under the relevant educational service law statutes as administered by the School Tribunal.
- The Court did not interpret substantive statutory provisions but applied principles governing uniformity and fairness in adjudication of service termination disputes where factual circumstances are identical.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations are set out; the judgment reinforces established law requiring uniform treatment of similarly situated litigants and avoidance of purely technical dismissals.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows existing precedent and applies tested principles of parity and procedural justice in termination cases.