wp254.93.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.254/1993,
WRIT PETITION NO.1297/1995,
WRIT PETITION NO.1888/1993,
WRIT PETITION NO.2231/1995,
WRIT PETITION NO.2291/1995,
WRIT PETITION NO.2292/1995,
WRIT PETITION NO.2295/1995,
AND
ig WRIT PETITION NO.3572/1995
--------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.254/1993
PETITIONER :- Urdu Education Association, Amravati,
a registered Public Trust, through its
President Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain,
resident of Chandni Chowk, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-1. Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Amravati.
3. Shri Vazir Patel, ex-receiver of the
Association, Valgaon Raod, Amravati.
4. Ku. Ishrat Jabeen d/o Abdul Majeed,
resident of Chaprasipura, Amravati.
5. Smt. Jamila Bano d/o Mohd. Shareef,
resident of Miskinshah Plot, Amravati.
6. Abdul Waheed Sheikh Jammu, resident of
Kholapur, District Amravati.
7. Firoz Khan Sikandar Khan, resident of
Muzaffarpura, Amravati.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 2
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. K.H. Deshpande, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.D. Lakhe, Adv. for petitioner
Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for respdt. No.1.
Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Adv. h/f Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for respdt. No.4
Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. Nos.5 and 6
--------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.1297/1995
PETITIONER :- Urdu Education Association, Amravati,
through its President, Chandni Chowk,
Amravati, Taluq and District Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS
:-1. Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
2. Mohammad Idrees s/o Abdul Bashir,
aged 24 years, resident of Juni Basti,
Badnera, Taluq and District Amravati.
3. Mohammad Asif s/o Sheikh Baba,
aged 21 years, resident of
c/o Sheikh Baba Sheikh Kasam,
Chhota Bazar, Paratwada, Taluq
Achalpur, District Amravati.
4. Firoz Khan s/o Sikandar Khan,
aged about 21 years, resident of
Muzaffarpura, Near Kabrastan,
Amravati, Taluq and District Amravati.
5. Abdul Waheed s/o Sheikh Hammu,
aged 29 years, resident of
c/o Dr. Saifuddin, Talabpura,
Amravati, Tah. and Dist. Amravati.
6. Abbas Khan s/o Shahbaz Khan,
aged 35 years, resident of at Post
Kurha Deshmukh, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
District Amravati.
7. Maqsood Ahmed s/o Sheikh Murtuza,
aged 25 years, resident of 9/61,
Gaos Nagar, Muzaffarpura, Amravati,
Tahsil and District Amravati.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 3
8. Mukhtar Hussain s/o Mohammad Hussain,
aged 25 years, resident of Shirajgaon
Band, Tq. Chandur Bazar, District
Amravati.
9. Jameela Bano d/o Mohammad Sharif,
aged 31 years, resident of Maskeen
Shah Plots, Chandni Chowk, Amravati,
Tahsil and Dist. Amravati.
10. Ku. Ishrat Jabin d/o Abdul Majid
aged 21 years, resident of Near
Flour Mill, Jail road, Camp
Amravati, Tah. and Distt. Amravati.
11. Deputy Director of Education,
ig Amravati Region, Amravati.
12. Deputy Director of Vocational
Education and Training, Amravati.
13. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
14. Athar Hussain s/o Iqbal Hussain
aged about 25 years, Occ. Service.
15. Tamijodin s/o Sirajodin,
aged about 27 years, Occ. Service.
16. Abdul Rafiq Abdul Rauf,
aged about 25 years, Occ. Service.
17. Javed Anjuman Sk. Rasul,
aged about 23 years, Occ. Service.
All residents of Amravati,
Tq. and Distt. Amravati.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr.K.H. Deshpande, Sr. Adv. with Mr.S.V. Purohit, Adv. for petitioner
Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for respdt. Nos. 11 to 13
Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Adv.h/f Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for respdt. No.10
Mr.R.A. Haq. Adv. for respdt. Nos.14 to 17.
Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. Nos. 2,3,5 to 9
--------------------------------------------------------
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 4
WRIT PETITION NO.1888/1993
PETITIONER :- Noor Subah d/o Mohd. Nayeem Qureshi,
aged about 26 years, Occupation :
Service r/o Camp near Circuit House,
Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-1. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad
Amravati.
2. President, Urdu Education Association
Amravati office at Chandani Chauk,
Amravati.
ig3. Ishrat Jabeen d/o Abdul Majid
(Chakkiwala), Chaprasi Pura
Camp Amravati, Tahsil and
District Amravati.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Adv. for petitioner
Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for respdt. No.1
Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Adv.h/f Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for respdt. No.3
--------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.2231/1995
PETITIONER :- Deputy Director of Vocational
Education & Training, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-1. Mohammad Idrees s/o Abdul Bashir,
aged about 26 years, occupation
presently working as lecturer
under the Association Urdu Boys
High School and Junior College,
Amravati, resident of Juni Basti,
Badnera, Tq and Dist. Amravati.
2. Urdu Education Association,
Amravati, through its President,
Chandni Chowk, Amravati, taluq
and Dist. Amravati and another.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 5
3. Mohammad Alfafur Rehman,
Lecturer, Urdu Education Association,
Amravati.
4. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
Shri M.G. Nandeshwar.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.J. Khan, AGP for petitioner
Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. No.1
Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for respdt. No.2
--------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.2291/1995
PETITIONER :- ig Deputy Director of Vocational
Education & Training, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-1. Abbas Khan s/o Shahbaz Khan,
aged about 37 years, occupation
presently working as Electrical
Instructor under the Association
Urdu Boys High School and Junior
College, Amravati, resident of
at post Kurha Deshmukh, taluq
Chandur Bazar, District Amravati.
2. Urdu Education Association,
Amravati through its president
Chandni chowk, Amravati, taluq
and District Amravati and another.
3. Athar Husain, Instructor, Urdu
Education Association, Amravati.
4. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Amravati Division, Amravati
Shri M.G. Nandeshwar.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for petitioner
Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. No.1
Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for respdt. No.2
--------------------------------------------------------
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 6
WRIT PETITION NO.2292/1995
PETITIONER :- Deputy Director of Vocational
Education & Training, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-1. Maqsood Ahmad s/o Sheikh Murtuza
aged about 27 years, occupation
presently working as Electronic
Inspector, under the Association
Urdu Boys High School and Junior
College, Amravati, resident of
9/61, Caos Nagar, Muzaffarpura,
Amravati, taluq and district Amravati.
ig2. Urdu Education Association,
Amravati, through its president,
Chandni Chowk, Amravati, taluq
and district Amravati and another.
3. Mohd. Shakeel, Instructor, Urdu
Education Association, Amravati.
4. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Amravati Division, Amravati
Shri M.G. Nandeshwar.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for petitioner
Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. No.1
Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv.f or respdt. No.2
--------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.2295/1995
PETITIONER :- Deputy Director of Vocational
Education & Training, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-1. Mohammad Asif s/o Sheikh Baba
aged about 21 years, occupation
presently working as Instructor
under the Association Urdu Boys
High School and Junior College,
Amravati, resident of C/o Sheikh
Baba s/o Sheikh Kasam, Chhota
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 7
Bazar, Paratwada, taluq Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Urdu Education Association,
Amravati, through its President,
Chandni Chowk, Amravati, taluq
and district Amravati and another.
3. Abdul Raffiq, Instructor, Urdu
Education Association, Amravati.
4. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Amravati Division, Amravati
Shri M.G. Nandeshwar.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for petitioner
Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. No.1
Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for respdt. No.2
--------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.3572/1995
PETITIONERS :- 1. Athar Hussain s/o Iqbal Hussain,
aged about 25 years, occupation :
service.
2. Tamijodin s/o Sirajodin,
aged about 27 years, occupation :
service.
3. Abdul Rafiq Abdul Rauf,
aged about 25 years, Occupation :
service.
4. Javed Anjum Sk. Rasul,
aged about 23 years, Occupation :
service.
All residents of Amravati,
Taluq and District : Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Urdu Education Association,
Amravati, through its President.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 8
2. Association Urdu Junior College,
(Minimum Competence Vocational
Course), Amravati, through its
Principal.
3. Deputy Director of Vocational
Education and Training, Regional
Office, Amravati.
4. State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Ministry of Education,
(Technical Education), Mantralaya,
Bombay 32.
5. Shri Abbas Khan s/o Shahbas Khan,
R/o Kurha, Tah. Chandur,
ig Dist. Amravati.
6. Moh. Asif s/o Moh. Baba
R/o Chota Bazar, Tah. Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati.
7. Muktar Hussain s/o Mohd. Hussain
R/o Sirazgaon Band, Amravati.
8. Moh. Idriees s/o Abdul Baseer
R/o Zuni Basti, Badnera, Dist.
Amravati.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.A. Haq. Adv. for petitioners
Mr. M.J. Khan, AGP for respdt. Nos.3 and 4
Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for respdt. Nos. 1 and 2
--------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND
A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
Date of reserving the judgment : 15.02.2011
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 16.03.2011
J U D G M E N T (PER : A.H. JOSHI, J.)
1. These writ petitions are taken up together for
hearing and final disposal.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 9
2. This Court by order dated 6.8.1997 in Writ
Petition No.1297/1995 directed that Writ Petition No.
254/1993 be heard as lead matter amongst several writ
petitions and hence, we have heard Writ Petition No.
254/1993 first and thereafter we have heard all the
connected writ petitions one by one.
3. In view that the group of petitions is being
heard together, it would be necessary to have a glance
at the tenor of different groups out of this group
petitions. Those are as follows :
(1) WRIT PETITION NO. 254/1993
This petition is filed by Urdu Education
Association, who runs the Educational Institution. In
this petition, the said institution is represented
through its President Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain.
The object of the petition is to
(i) seek a declaration that judgment
rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.1943/1992 is
not binding on the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 10
(ii) declare that respondent No.3, former
receiver of the Trust has no authority to appoint
respondent Nos. 4 to 7 therein.
(iii) the order passed by the Education
Officer on 3.12.1992, granting approval for appointments
of respondent Nos.4 to 7 therein be quashed.
(iv) declaration that respondent Nos.4 to 7
therein are not entitled to any relief such as salary.
(2) WRIT PETITION NO.1297/1995
This petition is filed by Urdu Education
Society through President Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat
Hussain challenging the judgment and order passed by the
School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal Nos.189/92-A to
197/92-A decided by common judgment and order dated
9.3.1995, granting reinstatement and back wages to
respondent Nos.2 to 10 therein. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 in
Writ Petition No.254/1993 are amongst these nine
respondents.
The challenge in writ petition No.1297/1995 is
based on the ground inter alia that during pendency of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 11
first appeal in the High Court between Mr. Munaf Hussain
Inayat Hussain and others against the Charity
Commissioner, the receiver was not and could not have
functioned as administrator of the Trust etc.
(3) WRIT PETITION NO.3572/1995
This petition is filed by four appointees
against the Educational Institution claimed to be run by
the President Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain. These
employees had prayed for mandamus for approval to their
appointments.
These four employees, whose services were
terminated during pendency of the petition by orders
dated 9.12.1996, have prayed for setting aside those
orders and consequently, benefit of payment of salary
etc..
(4) WRIT PETITION NO.1888/1993
This petition is filed by Noor Subah d/o Mohd.
Nayeem Qureshi, claiming relief of mandamus against the
Education Officer, seeking approval to the appointments
which were made by President Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat
Hussain.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 12
4. In support of the lead writ petition, learned
Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande made the following
submissions :
(a) The first board of trustees who were
appointed in the scheme proceedings made on 25.2.1975 by
the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Mumbai in Suo Motu
Proceeding No.127/1973, in which Mr. Munaf Hussain
Inayat Hussain
ig was the president, took charge on
22.4.1991, after civil court dismissed the suit by
judgment and decree dated 20.4.1991, holding that the
suit is not maintainable. During pendency of said suit
the appointment of these trustees was kept in abeyance,
pending decision of suit. Receiver Mr. Wazir Patel, who
was appointed by order in suit, stood removed because of
dismissal of the suit and the first board of trustee
took charge of the Trust and its properties.
(b) That the first board of trustees
including the President - Munaf Hussain s/o Inayat
Hussain took charge on 22.4.1991 is fully corroborated
and supported by the following events:
(i) The suit itself was dismissed on 20.4.1991
putting an end to the order appointing
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 13receiver in place of the first board of
trustees.
(ii) Application made by the District Government
Pleader, Amravati on 23.4.1991 for stay of
the order of the Court i.e. dated 20.4.1991
was rejected vide order dated 23.4.1991.
Note of this event was taken in the special
meeting of the trust held on 22.4.1991.
(iii)In Writ Petition No.1184/1991, stay order
that was granted earlier on 8.5.1991, was
modified to the order of status quo on
26.4.1991 because the learned Vacation Judge
was informed that the charge was already
taken on 22.4.1991. The said writ petition
was eventually withdrawn on 20.6.1991.
(iv) On 5.7.1991 on Civil Application No.1030 in
First Appeal No.221/1991, this Court modified
the stay order that was earlier granted on
8.5.1991 and clarified the same as status
quo and nothing more.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 14
(v) Civil Application No.1268/1992 in First
Appeal No.221/1991 was filed when the
appointments were sought to be made and this
Court on 9.6.1992 having been made fully
aware about the charge having been already
taken on 22.4.1991, made the following order:
appointments made, if any,
shall be subject to the result of the
igappeal.
(vi) The Deputy Director of Education after
granting hearing to both sides on 9.6.1992
made the following order :
As there is status quo given by the
Hon’ble High Court hence in the present
situation :
1) Both the parties will not transfer, appoint
any staff member.
2) Will not take any decision which will affect
the administration of the institution and in
case of any dispute they are advised to see
the Dy. Director of Education, Amravati.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 15
(c) In the wake of the above factual
scenario about receiver having been removed and his
charge having been taken at least after 9.6.1992, the
receiver Mr. Wazir Patel could not have made a single
appointment, but he made the appointments in question on
25.6.1992 and even thereafter, which were obviously
illegal and without any authority.
(d)
ig This Court decided First Appeal
No.221/1991 on 7.10.1992 and categorically found that
there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the
Charity Commissioner, receiver Mr. Wazir Patel and
others to keep away the first board of trustees that was
appointed in the scheme proceedings. It is clear that
this Court found all actions taken by the Charity
Commissioner and receiver were illegal, and if actions
of keeping the board of trustees away were found
illegal, all the appointments made by the receiver must
be held to be illegal and even now restitution must be
made by this Court referable to the date of taking
charge, namely 22.4.1991.
(e) The judgment and order dated 15.10.1992
in Writ Petition No.1943/1992, passed by the Division
Bench of this Court, directing that the approvals to the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 16
appointments of the appointees made by the receiver
should be granted and their salary should be paid does
not bind the petitioner as the petitioner President
representing the first board of trustees was never made
party to the said writ petition and since the judgment
does not bind the petitioner herein a declaration to
that effect is required to be given and consequently,
the directions to the Education Officer contained in the
said judgment are required to be wiped out.
(f) Perusal of the said judgment dated
15.10.1992 in Writ Petition No.1943/1992 shows that this
Court was misled and misrepresented by the petitioners
(appointees) therein that the First Appeal No.221/1991
since having been dismissed, there was no hurdle in
granting approval and this Court readily believed it.
(g) The judgment in First Appeal No.221/1991
was delivered on 7.10.1992 and the copy of the said
judgment could have been insisted upon by this Court for
looking into the same as to what was decided. Not
having done so, the judgment of this Court dated
15.10.1992 in Writ Petition No.1943/1992 runs counter to
what has been held in the judgment dated 7.10.1992 in
First Appeal No.221/1991 and therefore, the judgment
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 17
dated 15.10.1992 was obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation.
(h) A judgment obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation is ‘no judgment’ in the eye of law and
can be put to challenge in any proceedings or by a
substantive writ petition. Hence, the petitioner has
filed a substantive writ petition as remedy of review is
not available to the petitioner since the petitioner was
not a party to the Writ Petition No.1943/1992. Learned
Senior Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande supported the
submission by relying on the judgment in the case of
Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another…Versus…State of
Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1994 Supreme
Court 1673.
(i) Neither the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.1943/1992 nor the respondent in the said petition
including receiver Mr. Wazir Patel correctly informed
the Court as to what was held in the judgment that was
passed on 7.10.1992 in First Appeal No.221/1991 and on
the contrary, deliberately withheld the copy of the said
judgment from the Court and in collusion misled the
Court which wrongly allowed the said writ petition.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 18
(j) The orders passed at interlocutory
stages by this Court in various proceedings are bound to
merge in the final orders or judgments and in that
context, therefore, such interlocutory or interim orders
will have to be treated as of no assistance to the
appointees or receiver Mr. Wazir Patel.
(k) In the light of maxim, namely, actus
curiae neminem gravabit, the petitioner should not be
put to prejudice and therefore, the relief of
restitution, namely to declare that the petitioner who
was President of the first board of trustee was and is
entitled to manage the affairs of the
schools/institutions and the appointments made by the
petitioner alone were legal and proper is required to be
given and further declare that appointments made by the
receiver Mr. Wazir Patel were all illegal. The same
ought to be set aside.
(l) There is an undertaking given by the
appointees, appointed by the receiver that they would
refund their salaries, if any, paid to them vide order
in Writ Petition No.1943/1992. In that view of the
matter, this Court ought to undo the wrong.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 19
Learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande has
cited the following decisions :
(i) AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1673 (Ramchandra
Ganpat Shinde and another…Versus…State ofMaharashtra and others).
(ii) 1997 (7) Supreme Court Cases 300
(Reliance Industries Ltd…Versus…Pravinbhai
Jasbhai Patel and others).
(iii) 1981 Mh. L.J. 18 (J.G. Sinkar and
others…Versus…State of Maharashtra and
others).
(iv) 2000 (1) Supreme Court Cases 666 (M.M.
Thomas…Versus…State of Kerala andanother).
(v) 2006 (7) Supreme Court Cases 416 (Hamza
Haji…Versus…State of Kerala and another).
(vi) 2000 (3) Supreme Court Cases 581 (United
India Insurance Co. Ltd….Versus…RajendraSingh and others).
(vii) 1997 (1) SCALE 278
(N.Mohanan…Versus…State of Kerala & ors.).
(viii) 1992 (3) Supreme Court Cases 1 (Shri
Chamundi Mopeds Ltd….Versus…Church of::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 20South India Trust Association CSI Cinod
Secretariat, Madras).
(ix) 2004 (7) Supreme Court Cases 219 (BPL
Ltd. and others…Versus…R. Sudhakar and
others).
(x) 1997 (1) Supreme Court Cases 156 (State
of M.P. and others…Versus…M.V. Vyavsaya &Co.).
(xi) 2007 (4) Supreme Court Cases 221 (A.V.
Papayya Sastry and others…Versus…Govt. of
A.P. and others).
(xii) AIR 1962 Supreme Court 21 (Hiralal
Patni…Versus…Loonkaran Sethiya andothers).
(xiii) 1994 (6) Supreme Court Cases 545
(Shyam Sunder Datta…Versus…Baikuntha Nath
Banerjee (Dead) By Lrs. and others).
(xiv) 2000 (2) SCALE 343 (United India
Insurance Co. Ltd….Versus…Rajendra Singh
and others).
(xv) 2003 (8) Supreme Court Cases 648 (South
Eastern Coal Field Ltd….Versus…State of
M.P.).
(xvi) 2004 (2) Supreme Court Cases 783
(Karnataka Rare Earth and::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 21another…Versus…Senior Geologist,
Department of Mines & Geology and another).
5. Learned Advocate Mr. S.V. Purohit for the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.1297/1995 adopted the
submissions of learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.H.
Deshpande and urged that by allowing the Writ Petition
the common judgment and order of School Tribunal be set
aside, as it has to follow as imperative consequence of
allowing Writ Petition No.254/1993.
Learned Advocates appearing for the writ
petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1888/1993 and 3572/1995
by adopting the submissions advanced by the learned
Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande submitted that the
petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1888/1993 and 3572/1995
being the employees, appointed by the President of the
Trust (who is petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.254/1993
and 1297/1995) claim that they are entitled to
protection particularly since this Court had stayed the
orders of the School Tribunal of reinstatements of the
appointees who were appointed by the receiver.
6. Writ Petition Nos.2231/1995, 2291/1995,
2292/1995 and 2295/1995 which are filed by the Deputy
Director of Vocational Education and Training, Amravati
in which the petitioner has urged sole point that the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 22
directions contained in operative para 4 and 5 of the
judgment of the School Tribunal, consisting of direction
to the Government to pay the salaries of the appellants
in the event management fails to pay, is without
hearing, as the Deputy Director was not impleaded as a
party.
7. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. P.C.
Madkholkar vehemently
ig opposed all writ petitions and
argued that :-
(a) There is no iota of evidence on record
to even remotely infer that the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.1943/1992 were in collusion with the
respondents.
On the other hand that the statement that
there is no hurdle in deciding the writ petition due to
the decision in First Appeal was made by the Headmaster
of the School the respondent No.8 in Writ Petition
No.1943/1992, and it is so recorded in the judgment.
Moreover, said Headmaster is not in the array of the
respondents.
(b) The pleadings and evidence required for
proving collusion or fraud or misrepresentation must be
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 23
cogent as such a charge is of very serious nature and in
the absence of adequate pleadings and adequate proof
about collusion, fraud or misrepresentation, writ
petitions cannot be entertained.
(c) The judgment recorded by this Court on
15.10.1992 is a judgment obtained between the parties,
namely employer Urdu Education Society and employees.
The employer was a party to the petition through its
receiver, who was appointed by the competent Civil
Court.
(d) On the date of filing of the writ
petition and even after the decision dated 7.10.1992 in
First Appeal No.221/1991 and till 6.11.1992, the
receiver actually continued to hold the charge. The
Society was arrayed and was served in the petition
through the receiver who was all throughout actually in-
charge of management of the Trust. The first board of
trustees through its President i.e. the present
petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.1297/1995, 254/1993 and
had never entered the charge and control of the Trust.
(e) Therefore question of arraying the
petitioner as party did not arise. At any rate,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 24
Headmistress of the two schools were party to the said
writ petition and it is not possible to believe that the
present petitioner did not know about the said writ
petition, when there were as many as eight respondents
and each and every matter was being contested in various
Courts and the Education Department of the Government.
(f) The judgment and order dated 15.10.1992
in Writ Petition No.1943/1992 therefore, cannot be said
to be obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
(g) The said submission of fraud is wholly
inappropriate and liable to be rejected.
(h) The appointees appointed by the receiver
are poor persons, who have not been paid at all and were
kept away from employment because of the stay orders of
this Court in various writ petitions.
(i) In the absence of any fraud as alleged,
the present lead petition is required to be dismissed
with costs.
8. We have heard learned Advocate for the rival
parties for a considerable length of time. We have
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 25
perused the entire record of the writ petitions and of
decided cases referred to in these petitions. We have
carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned Advocates for the rival parties.
9. Taking up Writ Petition No.254/1993 as a lead
matter for consideration, which contains the prayer for
declaration that the judgment of this Court dated
15.10.1992 in Writ Petition No.1943/1992 is not binding
on the petitioner and be reviewed etc.. we proceed to
record reasons as hereinafter.
10. Perusal of the array of the parties in Writ
Petition No.1943/1992 shows that there were four
petitioners, who were the employees appointed by the
receiver. There were eight respondents, out of which
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the local Education
Department at Amravati, respondent No.4 is Mr. Wazir
Patel the receiver, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the other
members of the Selection Committee appointed by the
Court, respondent Nos.7 and 8 are the Headmistress and
Headmaster of the two schools. According to the
petitioner, charge was taken by newly appointed Trustees
on 22.4.1991 and were also acting as such. If that is
so, we fail to understand as to how the petitioners
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 26
could not come to know about Writ Petition No.1943/1992
through respondent Nos.7 and 8, Headmistress and
Headmaster of the two schools or local Education
Department or other members, appointed by the Court on
the Selection Committee. There is no averment anywhere
in the writ petition explaining this. There is no
averment in the writ petition that after receiving
charge on 22.4.1991, the petitioners made any
correspondence ig about the appointments made by the
receiver or their assertion as in-charge of the Trust
and the schools with local Education Department or any
of the respondent Nos.7 or 8. If they were in-charge
from 22.4.1991, it was for them to discharge this burden
as to what steps they took about apprising respondent
Nos.7 and 8 and the local Education Department.
11. We see that a clear observation is made by
this Court in the judgment dated 15.10.1992 in Writ
Petition No.1943/1992 with reference to the
interpretation made by the local Education Department
about the order of this Court dated 9.6.1992 in First
Appeal No.221/1991, which reads thus:
The Education Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Amravati by his letter dated
20th July, 1992 informed the Head master of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 27
the School that according to our order, the
appointments made prior to the said order
are subject to the result of the appeal and
that no subsequent appointments can be made.
The above interpretation of the Education
Officer is clearly erroneous. The School
Management had power to appoint the
necessary staff after the date of the said
order, but the said appointments were
subject to the result of the aforesaid
appeal.
12.
The submission that this Court made clearly
wrong observation in the said judgment dated 15.10.1992
in Writ Petition No.1943/1992 that there was no hurdle
in granting approval to the appointments because of
dismissal of First Appeal No.221/1991, in our opinion,
at the best can be described by the petitioner as an
illegal and incorrect finding by the Court, as submitted
by learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande. But it
cannot be said that the said finding is vitiated by any
fraud or misrepresentation. The submission made by the
learned senior Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande about the
judgment dated 7.10.1992 in First Appeal No.221/1991 can
at the most lead one to say that the Court erred in
recording judgment dated 15.10.1992 in Writ Petition No.
1943/1992 without reading the judgment dated 7.10.1992
passed in First Appeal No.221/1991 by insisting for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 28
certified copy thereof from either of the parties or suo
motu when they were told that the said first appeal was
decided a week back. But according to us, this cannot
vitiate the judgment dated 15.10.1992 in Writ Petition
No.1943/1992, as we do not find that there was any
fraud, collusion or misrepresentation. And these could
be the grounds to challenge the said judgment dated
15.10.1992 before the Apex Court.
13.
Coming to the averments made in the writ
petition, we find that the petition does not contain
specific averments as to the details of the alleged
collusion between the appointees and respondent No.3
the receiver. The submission of the present petitioner
to draw inference of collusion merely because certain
facts, namely the facts that this Court in judgment
dated 7.10.1992 held that the Charity Commissioner and
receiver were instrumental in not allowing the first
board of trustees to function or that the petitioner had
already taken charge on 22.4.1991 and that no
appointments could be made at least beyond 9.6.1992,
were not pointed out to the Court does not appeal to us
being sheerly argumentive and contrary to record. We do
not believe that merely by drawing inferences, we should
record a finding of collusion or fraud or
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 29
misrepresentation.
14. There is no documentary evidence or any other
satisfactory evidence brought on record by the
petitioner to show that the petitioner was in fact given
charge on 22.1.1991 by any Court or authority or by the
receiver himself. The petitioner did not get executed
through Court the order of Court dated 20.4.1991 below
Exh.1 for taking charge.
On the contrary, there is a document (Annexure
R-14) dated 6.11.1992 at page Nos.181 to 183 in this
Writ Petition which clearly shows that the receiver Mr.
Wazir Patel had handed over the charge to the concerned
Superintendent Shri R.R. Navalkar on 6.11.1992 at 9.00
p.m.. This being the documentary proof, we are not
inclined to accept any oral statement nor we are
inclined to draw inferences about the petitioner having
taken charge on 22.4.1991. That apart, there is other
reason why we say so.
15. In First Appeal No.221/1991, while deciding
the same finally on 7.10.1992, six civil applications
were disposed of without any orders. It is not in
dispute that order dated 9.6.1992 was passed in the said
First Appeal only about the fate of the appointments,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 30
namely that the appointments shall be subject to the
result of the appeal. We fail to understand as to why
the present petitioner did not pray and seek the orders
regarding the validity of the appointments made by the
receiver earlier or after 9.6.1992 or actions taken by
the receiver till the date of the said judgment
inter alia on the ground that the charge was already
taken on 22.4.1991 by the petitioner and no appointments
could at all be made by receiver at least after 9.6.1992
in First Appeal No.221/1991 and since they were made
illegally, and those were not binding on the petitioner.
Nothing prevented the petitioner from doing so when the
said appeal was hotly contested at all stages.
16. First Appeal No.221/1991 was the only
proceedings where alone the orders as to clarification
of acts of Receiver could have been sought validly. The
matter would have ended then and there without keeping
any scope for confusion sought to be created. There is
no explanation whatsoever before us on this aspect of
the matter. On the contrary, as to the charge, the
following observations and findings in the judgment
dated 7.10.1992 of the said First Appeal No.221/1991 are
contrary to what has been contended before us :-
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 31
Para 11. ….The scheme is not
implemented even now because of the various
tactics applied by the appellant and their
office.
Para 12. …It is thus crystally
clear that the plaintiff did not leave any
stone unturned to keep defendants away from
the administration and with this intention
also filed a suit.
ig Para 13. …The objective
appellant has been substantially achieved.
of the
Para 18. ...The trustees who are
alive shall be given complete charge of the
management and administration of the trust
along with upto date accounts within one
month from today.
17. The above operative part thus shows that this
Court in First Appeal No.221/1991 recorded a finding
that the petitioner and the board of trustees were never
given charge of the management and administration of the
Trust. On the contrary, this Court did not in any
expressed manner or by passing an order oust or
discharge him until final disposal of first appeal and
rather allowed the receiver to be in-charge of the
management and administration for a period beyond one
month from the date of judgment dated 7.10.1992 i.e.
till 6.11.1992.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 32
18. We do not agree with learned Senior Advocate
Mr. K.H. Deshpande when he submits that a receiver once
removed automatically becomes functous officio and the
period of one month given for rendition of accounts is
merely for doing ministerial acts or for rendering
accounts in present case.
The reason is that there is a clear direction
made by this Court in First Appeal No.221/1991 that the
receiver shall hand over the charge of the management
and administration of the Trust along with accounts
within one month from the date of judgment, vide para 18
above quoted.
19. We are not inclined to interpret the said
judgment or the finding or the direction as suggested by
learned senior Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande since to our
mind, it is clear that nothing prevented the petitioner
from getting the same clarified at the appropriate time
in the manner that is now being contended.
20. In other words, in the order made by this
Court, the receiver continued to be in charge of the
management and administration till 6.11.1992. That being
a clear order, we do not agree that the receiver became
functionless on the date of dismissal of the suit i.e.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 33
20.4.1991 or even the appeal which was decided on
7.10.1992. The direction about retention of the entire
charge of management and administration with the
receiver till 6.11.1992 has thus been amply clarified by
the first appellate Court itself and we are not
impressed to interpret the same on the basis of various
interlocutory orders referred to us nor we will touch
the sanctity of the said judgment and order in First
Appeal No.221/1991 by making any interpretation.
21. It is nowhere pleaded in the petition that the
receiver in fact never obtained any prior approval of
the Civil Court vide its order dated 3.3.1990 before he
made appointments. At any rate, appointments were made
by him after 9.6.1992 when this Court made an order in
relation thereto. This Court as already stated by us in
paragraph No.10 herein also held that even after
9.6.1992 appointments could be made. Then the suit was
dismissed on 20.4.1991 by the Civil Court with the
result the said order dated 3.3.1990 merged in the
dismissal of suit. The appointments were never made till
the suit was dismissed, but were made when the lis was
in this Court.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 34
22. There has to be adequate pleadings, cogent
evidence and materials on record to draw an inference or
record a finding that fraud was played on the Court or
the Court was misled or misrepresented by a collusive
writ petition. The decision in the case of Ramchandra
Ganpat Shinde and another (supra) will be of no
assistance to the petitioner in view of the peculiar
findings about collusive nature of the lis involved in
that case. The following paragraph Nos.8 and 9 show the
finding :
8. It would be obvious that A.K.
Patil, Ex-Chairman of the defunct committee
with a view to get over that impediment and to
enable newly admitted 2000 members after
December 17, 1991, set up More, a co-director
and Mule, alleged to be his friend, got filed
the first writ petition and obtained a
direction to conduct election following its
heels got filed second writ petition with a
format of legal process but immediately Patil
intervened and appeared on the very date of
admission; put forth consent order and
obtained the order from the Court to conduct
election as per the provisional list existing
as on June 30, 1992 and got issued the
direction to the Collector with the mandate to
conduct election in accordance with that list.
It was specifically alleged that Patil
colluded with More and Mule, abused the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 35
process of the Court, played fraud on the
Court and obtained minutes order by consent
without knowledge to any member of the
society. In the absence of any denial of the
allegations and in the light of the background
of the case the necessary inference to be
unerringly deduced would be that the consent
order is a collusive and fraudulent order;
made format of due process of law but obtained
orders contrary to the statutory mandate of
Rule 4 (1) of the Rules. It could thus be seen
any
that none of the members of the society had
opportunity to know or to oppose the
consent order. Thereby the necessary
conclusion would be that a collusive order
obtained by abuse of the process of the Court
by playing fraud on the Court, became
foundation to conduct elections to the
Managing Committee of the society
circumventing the mandate of Rule 4 (1) of the
Rules.
9. In Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shamma Rao, 1956
SCR 451 at 463 : (AIR 1956 SC 593 at p. 599)
this Court held that collusion in judicial
proceedings is a secret arrangement between
two persons that the one should institute a
suit against the other in order to obtain the
decision of a judicial Tribunal for some
sinister purpose. In such a proceedings, the
claim put forward is fictitious, the contest
over it is unreal, and the decree passed
therein is a mere mask having the similitude
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 36
of a judicial determination and worn by the
parties with the object of confounding third
parties. This was reiterated in Rup Chand
Gupta v. Raghuvanshi Pvt. Ltd., (1964) 7 SCR
760 at 763 : (AIR 1964 SC 1889 at p. 1891), in
which this Court held that the collusion is an
improper act done by an improper refraining
from doing an act, for a dishonest
purpose. …
23. Upon perusal of the entire writ petition, we
do not find any specific averments as to how and when
the appointees and the receiver colluded to file Writ
Petition No.1943/92 and to obtain the judgment and order
dated 15.10.1992. Merely because the receiver made the
appointments of the appointees and the appointees prayed
for grant of approval from the Education Officer, no
collusion can be inferred. The crux of the averments in
paragraph Nos.2 to 12 of the petition about collusion,
fraud or misrepresentation is that the appointees
petitioners in Writ Petition No.1943/1992 suppressed the
facts about the taking over of charge on 22.4.1991 by
the President Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain;
existence of status quo order as modified by this Court
on 8.5.1991 in Writ Petition No.1184/1991 and on
20.6.1991, 9.6.1992 in First Appeal No.221/1991; and
interpretation of this Court s order dated 9.6.1992 made
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 37
by Deputy Director of Education and consequent refusal
of Education Officer to accord approval. Further that
the judgment dated 7.10.1992 in First Appeal No.221/1991
was never shown to this Court by the appointees and the
receiver as the findings therein are in favour of the
present petitioner. None of these events and the
averments would make any difference in view of what we
find hereafter. We now record our reasons for this and
for holding ig that it is not possible to draw any
conclusion about collusion, fraud or misrepresentation.
The reasons are as follows :
24. The submission made by the learned Senior
Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande that the petitioner board
of trustees or the President of the petitioner Society
was not made party to the said Writ Petition
No.1943/1992 does not impress us. In the light of the
factual aspect before us, we are inclined to hold that
the petitioner or the first board of trustees
represented by Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain, the
present petitioner before us was never placed in-charge
of the Trust and its institutions at any time before
6.11.1992.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 38
25. Consequently, we ought to hold that the
receiver was in-charge of the Trust and its institutions
till 6.11.1992. The petitioner as President of the first
board of trustees could not have been arrayed as party
to Writ Petition No.1943/1992 till the date of its
disposal i.e. 15.10.1992 and even till 6.11.1992. The
Trust was thus rightly sued and was duly represented in
the said writ petition through receiver Mr. Wazir Patel
and the petitioner could not have been a party to the
said writ petition as contended before us. In other
words, the judgment dated 15.10.1992 in Writ Petition
No.1943/1992 would certainly bind the Urdu Education
Society which was at the relevant time sued through
receiver who was appointed on 4.2.1983 by a competent
Civil Court and held to be in-charge till 6.11.1992 by
this Court. We, therefore, reject the contention that
the judgment dated 15.10.1992 in Writ Petition No.
1943/1992 is not binding on the petitioner.
26. The petitioner has not pleaded either
ignorance about the appointment of writ petitioners in
Writ Petition No.1943/1992 or about pendency of said
writ petition. Moreover, it is not explained as to what
prevented the petitioner from intervening or getting
impleaded in the Writ Petition No.1943/1992 in the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 39
background that the petitioner was pursuing the cause of
salaries of teachers appointed by the writ petitioner,
and was also arrayed as respondent No.1 in the Contempt
Petition which was filed in Writ Petition No.1943/1992.
27. As already held, we are not inclined to agree
with learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande that
there was material on record to show that any fraud was
played on the Court in collusion or misrepresentation
was made for obtaining the judgment dated 15.10.1992 in
Writ Petition No.1943/1992.
28. Since we have held that the appointments of
the appointees made by the receiver Mr. Wazir Patel were
made within his authority and thus the appointments made
by him could not be said to be illegal and further that
the judgment of this Court dated 15.10.1992 in Writ
Petition No.1943/1992, directing the Education Officer
to grant approvals to these appointees and also to pay
them salary from the Government exchequer is not
vitiated either by fraud, collusion or
misrepresentation.
29. Copy of the order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.1943/1992 is on record of Writ Petition
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 40
No.254/1993 at page 16 to 18. When this Court issued a
writ, it was directed in distinct terms as to what it
meant, which would be better by referring the quotation
as follows :-
If the appointments of the petitioners
are in accordance with the rules, the
Education Officer is directed to accord hisapproval to the same. The School authorities
are directed
ig to include the names of the
petitioners Nos.1,2,3 and 4 in the salary
bills of the staff and the Education Officeris directed to grant their salaries from the
dates of their appointments.
(Quoted from Page 17 of Writ Petition
No.254/1993)
30. It is clear that this Court had left it open
to the Education Officer to decide as to whether
appointments of the petitioners are in accordance with
rules. If the tenor of order is seen, this Court does
not admit any role of confusion nor it is prejudice to
anybody.
31. The petitioners were before this Court,
claiming relief of salary. It was well sounded to the
Court that there was some controversy relating to the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 41
appointments i.e. those being made by the receiver. The
employees who were appointed by President Mr. Munaf
Hussain Inayat Hussain were also striving to get
salaries and it is in this background this Court appears
to have directed that the appointments were legal.
32. Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain the President
was very well arrayed as respondent No.1 in Contempt
Petition No.259/1992 along with two heads of the school.
Said contempt petition was initially filed as a civil
application in Writ Petition No.1943/1992 and was by
order of the Court treated as contempt petition.
Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain the President was thus
fully aware of the pendency of this writ petition and
his conduct has to be read as forbearance not appearing
in the said writ petition. It could therefore be
extremely difficult to spell out that Mr. Munaf Hussain
Inayat Hussain i.e. President of the Society in the
present group of petitions was unaware of pendency of
Writ Petition No.1943/1992 and alleged fraud. The
petitioner in Writ Petition No.254/1993 thus had full
opportunity to know and participate in the proceedings.
33. Certainty and continuity are essential
ingredients of rule of Law. The same would be
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 42
considerably eroded and suffer a serious set back if
this Court were readily to declare that a earlier
judgment of this Court is vitiated by fraud, collusion
or misrepresentation. But the same ought to be done only
when substantial and compelling reasons are shown and
established by a strong foundation. A judgment of a
Court once delivered has a certain sanctity. The same
Court ought to take due care and caution when called
upon to examine whether it is vitiated by fraud etc.. We
are fully aware that a judgment of a Court obtained by
playing fraud on the Court or by misrepresentation etc.
should not be allowed to operate.
34. The questions which essentially arise are :-
Can a judgment of a Court be allowed to be
made inoperative on mere allegations of fraud, collusion
or misrepresentation and then what is the degree of
proof required ?
Should the Court merely on creation of
suspicion or for possibility of another view of the
matter make an order vitiating a judgment of a Court ?
35. In our opinion, the answer has to be in the
negative.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 43
36. As a sequel, we will have to uphold the
impugned common judgment and order made by the Tribunal
aforesaid. However, we are inclined to modify the
direction No.4 in the operative part of the said common
judgment of the School Tribunal dated 9.3.1995,
regarding payment of arrears of pay and allowance or the
back wages for the following reasons :
The
ig terminations were effected by the
petitioner on 9.11.1992 only on the ground that the
appointments of those appointees were made by the
receiver, who had no authority to make any appointment
that was due to the dispute initiated by the persons
interested in the petitioner Trust, staff working in
the schools run by the Trust, community people, Charity
Commissioner, the President – Mr. Munaf Hussain of the
petitioner Society, his first board of trustees and
others.
37. The litigation was brought to the Courts and
many interim orders were passed by the Courts. Even in
the instant case, the judgment and order made by the
Tribunal was not stayed when the writ petition was
admitted. The period of more than 18 years has been
spent in the process from the date of order of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 44
termination. The petitioner Education Trust and its
schools if are asked to comply with the direction No.4
in entirety, regarding payment of full back wages, as
ordered by the School Tribunal, there is a serious
likelihood of the Trust and its institutions crumbling
down in totality. That will result into closure of the
schools and institutions putting all the employees
working under the Trust apart from the employees
concerned in these petitions to a grave agony.
38. In so far as writ petitions filed by the
Deputy Director of Vocational Education are concerned,
we are unable to trace from the contents of the
petitions as to how the State Government is aggrieved by
the order, when the payment alternatively to be made by
the Government is from the grants payable to the
petitioner. Such an order is very well within the
contemplation of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Employees
of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation
Act, 1977, which can be clear from Sub Section 3 of
Section 11 of the Act, which reads as follows.
11 (3). It shall be lawful for the
Tribunal to recommend to State Government
that any dues directed by it to be paid to
the employee, or in case of an order to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 45
reinstate the employee any emoluments to be
paid to the employee till he is reinstated,
may be deducted from the grant due and
payable, or that may become due and payable
in future, to the Management and be paid to
the employee direct.
39. In this background the petitions filed by the
Deputy Director of Vocational Education are not based on
legal rightsig and are devoid of
petitioner State had no cause of action, and the Deputy
bona fides. The
Director of Vocational Education had clearly fallen in
the line of favouring the Management for ostensible
reasons.
40. In so far as two petitions filed by the
employees i.e. Writ Petition Nos.1888/1993 and 3572/1995
are concerned, they have to follow the course as
emerging upon dismissal of Writ Petition Nos.254/1993
and 1297/1995.
41. This Court had noticed from the record that
when the writ petitions of teachers, namely Noor Subah
Athar Hussain, Tamijodin, Abdul Rafiq and Javed Anjum in
Writ Petition Nos.1888/1993 and 3572/1995 were
considered, the question of granting them salaries had
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 46
arisen and it was very well debated before this Court
that the group of teachers appointed by the receiver was
simultaneously exerting to demand the salaries. The
teachers appointed by President Mr. Munaf Hussain were
also doing the same thing.
42. In this background, this Court (Coram : Y.K.
Sabharwal, C.J. and M.B. Ghodeswar, J.) passed an order
on 19.3.1999. It was at that time urged that at least
one group of teachers should get the salary and the
President Mr. Munaf Hussain gave an undertaking, which
is recorded by this Court in its order dated 19.3.1999.
Relevant portion of the order is recorded as follows :
…..Factually, it is the petitioners,
who are teaching, though the order of the
School Tribunal is in favour of the
intervenors. Be that as it may, subject tofulfilment of the rules and regulations,
prima facie the Deputy Director will probably
release the grants atleast for one set of the
teachers. Regarding the intervenors, theManagement is prepared to give an undertaking
to reimburse them if order of the School
Tribunal is maintained.
43. It is thus clear that the petitioners in Writ
Petition Nos.1888/1993 and 3572/1995 have remained in
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 47
the employment because of the interim order passed by
this Court and the teachers who want order of
reinstatement and full back wages, which order was not
stayed, remained out of employment and without salary.
44. Thus, the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.
1888/1993 and 3572/1995 are not entitled for relief
whatsoever in view of what we have found that receiver
was factually in-charge
ig and was not legally ousted or
discharged. No fault whatsoever therefore could be found
with the appointments of the employees appointed by the
receiver. The employees appointed by President Mr. Munaf
Hussain Inayat Hussain were certainly appointed without
new trustees’ having actual entered the office and
without discharge of his duty.
45. We, therefore, hold that these petitioners in
Writ Petition Nos.1888/1993 and 3572/1995 are not
entitled for any relief and thus petitions are liable to
be dismissed. The salaries and allowances drawn by the
teachers will however stand appropriated towards duty
performed by them.
46. That apart, we find that in the memo of appeal
that was filed before the Tribunal that the employees
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 48
never averred that they were surviving without any
source of income nor in reply to the present petitions,
there are any averments to that effect. It is not
possible for this Court to believe that these appointees
have been surviving without any source of income or any
gainful avocation or employment for all these years. At
the same time, this Court cannot forget the fact that
these appointees have been put to sufferance and
hardships. Thus, balancing the entire matter regarding
award of full back wages, in our considered opinion,
award of back wages to the extent of 25 % of the full
back wages should subserve the interest of justice. In
the event the Government has not paid regularly towards
non-salary grants to the schools, the payment of arrears
of 25% back wages be disbursed from unpaid Government
grants. If there are no undisbursed grants, the arrears
will have to be paid by the employer Trust.
47. We are, therefore, inclined to modify the
impugned common judgment dated 9.3.1995, passed by the
School Tribunal in respect of all the appointees,
appointed by the receiver involved in Writ Petition
No.1297/1995, who are not reinstated or who are not
elsewhere employed in any aided school/teaching
institution.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 49
48. In the result, we find no merit in the lead
petition bearing Writ Petition No.254/1993. It is, thus,
dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only) payable equally to the respondents
Nos.3 to 7 the appointees.
49. Writ Petition No.1297/1995 is partly allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 9.3.1995, passed
by the School Tribunal, Amravati is modified only to the
extent of substituting operative part 4 thereof, which
shall be read henceforth as under :
(4) The respondent
Management is further directed to pay only
25% of the arrears of pay and allowance to
each of the appellants who are not
reinstated or those who are not elsewhere
employed in any aided teaching institution,
within six months from their own resources,
failing which the same amount shall carry
simple interest @ 4% per annum till the
actual payment. The appellants shall however
be granted continuity of service only for
the purposes of computing terminal benefits.
It is made clear that it is for
the respondent Management to garner its
own resources or to request the Government
for making the said payments from the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::
wp254.93.odt 50
Government grants, if the same are payable
to the respective Educational Institutions.
The order of reinstatement of the appointees
shall be made within a period of three
months from today.
50. Other writ petitions, namely Writ Petition
Nos.1888/1993 and 3572/1995 are dismissed with costs.
51. Writ Petition Nos.2231/1995, 2291/1995,
2292/1995
and 2295/1995 are dismissed with costs of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable to each
respondent employee.
52. Rule accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
ssw
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:06:36 :::