AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs : "...Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of writ of mandamus, a writ of certiorari, direction or order directing the respondents :
a) To declare that order dated 28.12.2004 passed by the Primary Education Tribunal in application no.82/2003 refusing either to grant the relief and adjourning the matter in due course is illegal, unconstitutional and is in violation of sub.section 4 of sec.40F of Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947.
b) To direct the Primary Education Tribunal to decide the matter finally.
c) To declare that having admitted the matter by the Primary Education Tribunal under sec. 40F, to decide the matter finally having heard the matter finally is in gross violation of statutory remedy provided under sub sec.4 of sec.40F of the Bombay Primary Education Act. d) To quash and set aside the order of termination dated 15.5.2002 and 18.5.2002 whereby the petitioner is relieved.
e) To declare that the order of termination dated 15.5.2002 is contrary to provisions under sec.40B of the Bombay Primary Education Act and reduction of the class ground on which the service on which the service if the application is termination under Rule 5 of Schedule F of the Bombay Primary Education Rules.
f) To declare that sub clause 2 of Rule 29 of the Contract by way of Service Rule annexed is in violation of Sec.40D of the Bombay Primary Education Act.
g) To reinstate the petitioner with back wages.
h) To grant consequential benefits of quashing and setting aside the order of termination.
i) To declare that reduction in total number of classes hereinabove facts and circumstances by respondent school without prior permission in writing to the Government is illegal and contrary to Rule 5 of Schedule F and required to be quashed and set aside.
j) To declare that termination of a permanent employee like the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under sec.40D of the Bombay Primary Education Act is not only illegal but void ab initio.
k) Any other relief deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
l) Cost of this petition."
The questions of law which have been raised are answered in terms of the judgment and order passed by this Court today in the Special Civil Application No.10029 of 1999. If any proceedings are pending as on date before the Tribunal, the same shall be governed by what has been held in the judgment and order passed today in the Special Civil Application No.10029 of 1999. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.