JUDGMENT
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
1. Since common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in these three petitions is that the appeals filed by the respondent No. 3 have been disposed of without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to putforth their say in the matter.
3. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 3 preferred appeals against the order of termination issued by the petitioner. For some time, there was no Presiding Officer for the School Tribunal at Aurangabad. After having appointed one such officer to preside over the said Tribunal, the same started re-functioning from 26th April, 1999. About 30 matters were listed on the notice board for the purpose of hearing on the said date and among those 30 matters, the same did not include the three, appeals filed by the respondent No. 3 herein. Though the learned Advocate for the petitioner herein and the respondents in those three appeals, was present in the same school Tribunal on the said day and had attended some of the listed matters, as the Court files pertaining to the matters in question were not traceable, left the school Tribunal at about 3.30 p.m. Subsequent thereto, the said files having been traced, the three matters along with 5 other matters were added to list of cases on the notice board and these three matters were taken up for hearing after 3.30 p.m. and the same were allowed in favour of the respondent No. 3. The orders allowing the appeals apparently disclose that the Advocates for both the parties were absent when the matters were called out and the orders were passed thereon. Subsequently in the month of August and within 30 days from the date of the orders dated 26th July, 1999, the petitioner filed applications for review of the said orders and for re-hearing of the matters. The same came to be objected to by the respondent No. 3 herein and were accordingly dismissed by the impugned orders. Hence, the present petitions.
4. Referring to section 10 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Order XLI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard in the matters and the appeals were allowed without proper compliance of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal having ignored the same had acted illegally while dismissing their applications for review and hence requires interference in writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the petitioner had failed to contest the appeals by filing written statements though sufficient opportunity in that regard was given by the Tribunal, and therefore it cannot be said that the Tribunal disposed of the matters without complying with the principles of natural justice. Referring to section 12 of the said Act it was sought to be contended that there was no challenge to the order disposing of the appeals in favour of the respondent No. 3 and for all purposes the same have become final.
5. The records apparently disclose a categorical case having been putforth by the petitioner before the School Tribunal to the effect that the learned Advocate for the petitioner was misled by the Board which was prepared for 26th July, 1999 which comprised of only 30 matters and did not include the matters in question. It was categorically stated that the Court files pertaining to the matters in question before the School Tribunal were not traceable on 26th July, 1999 till 3.30 p.m. and considering the same, the Advocate for the petitioner, after attending to other matters wherein he was appearing before the Tribunal, left the Tribunal at about 3.30 p.m. All these facts have been supported by a proper affidavit by the petitioner but have not been controverted by the respondent. Mere vague denial of the contents does not amount to specific denial of the specific case pleaded by the party. There are categorical statements in relation to the factual position on 26th July, 1999 relating to the matters in question before the School Tribunal. The same disclose that the Presiding Officer for the School Tribunal was not available till 25th July, 1999, it was the first day of the Presiding Officer in the School Tribunal on 26th July, 1999, the Board prepared by the office of the School Tribunal did not disclose, at least till 3.30 p.m. on the relevant day, that the cases in question were fixed for hearing on 26th July, 1999, the Court files pertaining to the matters in question were not traceable on 26th July, 1999 till 3.30 p.m., the Advocate for the petitioner herein after attending other matters listed on the Board, left the Tribunal premises at 3.30 p.m. All these facts go to show that there was sufficient justification for the learned Advocate for the respondent before the Tribunal and the petitioner herein to leave the Tribunal at 3.30 p.m. on the said date and having left the Tribunal and the files having traced thereafter and the cases having been added to the Board subsequent to 3.30 p.m. the Tribunal ought to have considered that there was no fair opportunity afforded to the petitioner herein and the respondents in the School Tribunal to defend the appeals and on that count alone, considering the provisions of Rule 21 of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code the necessary opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to contest the proceeding by recalling the order passed on 26th July, 1999.
6. The Tribunal has nowhere considered in the impugned order, the fact about non availability of the Court files of the matters in question on 26th July, 1999 till 3.30 p.m. or the reasons for the learned Advocate for the petitioners herein to leave the Tribunal by that time and the fact that the cases in question were entered in the list of cases only after 3.30 p.m. on the said date 26th July, 1999.
7. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 that the Advocate for the petitioner attended the hearing on 26th July, 1999 is totally devoid of substance as it is contrary to the records. The Roznama of the cases before the School Tribunal as well as the orders dated 26th July, 1999 apparently disclose that both the Advocates were absent when the matters were called out. The matters were called out after 3.30 p.m. In other words, both the Advocates had left the Tribunal on assumption that the Court files of those cases were not traceable and the same would not be called out for hearing on the said day. In these circumstances, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the Tribunal ought to have invoked the powers under Order XLI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ought to have afforded fair opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Having not done so, the Tribunal has clearly acted illegally and arbitrarily. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
8. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of the Tribunal are hereby quashed and set aside and the Appeals Nos. 361/96, 363/96 and 364/96 are remanded to the School Tribunal, Aurangabad with the directions to hear the same afresh on merits by giving proper opportunity to both the parties of hearing in the matters. Considering the appeals are of the year 1996, the School Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 31st December, 2001.
9. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.