Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SATISH NAMDEO AWGHADE
Versus
EDUCATION OFFICER (SECONDARY), zilla PARISHAD, SOLAPUR
Decided on,APRIL 18, 2006
Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Writ petition Involving disputed question of fact Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 Raised disputed question of fact required determination through adjudicatory process Writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution cannot be invoked. Court is of the view that writ jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked when disputed questions of fact are raised and require determination through adjudicatory process.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Writ petition Maintainability of Material facts suppressed by petitioner Not coming Court with clean hands Petition liable to be dismissed Petitioner cannot involve extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 due to his conduct of concealing material facts.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Education Exercise of writ jurisdiction Petitioner claims to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in a School Alleged nonpayment of supplementary pay bill of salary Challenged in writ petition Respondent disputing his appointment Disputed question of fact raised Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked Disputed question of fact requires determination through adjudicating process. Court is of the view that writ jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked when disputed questions of fact are raised and require determination through adjudicatory process.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Education Petitioner, an approved Assistant Teacher in respondent’s No. 3’s School as recommended by respondent No. 2 in vacant post Appointed on post of D.Ed. on 14.6.1999 being of Scheduled Caste to fill up reserved vacancy Supplementary pay bill for salary from 14.6.1999 to 29.2.2000 not paid to him Challenged in writ petition Petitioner suppressed fact regarding claim of respondent No. 5 and direction of Member Grievance Committee Petition liable to be dismissed Cannot invoke jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution. It is explicit that the petitioner suppressed the fact regarding the claim of respondent No. 5-Umesh Kadu and the direction of the one Member Grievance Committee at the time of filing of the petition. The petitioner has come out with the case that his salary dues are withheld on account of inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is difficult to appreciate that the petitioner was unaware about the reasons for non-payment of the salary to him. In other words, the petitioner has suppressed certain material facts and has not come to the Court with clean hands. It is well settled that such a petition, in which material facts are suppressed, is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled, therefore, to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to his conduct of concealing the material facts.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Writ petition filed by teacher claiming salary due Conduct of the petitioner is not bona fide He suppressed material facts and has not come to the Court with clean hands There are several disputed questions of fact involved in the matter The petitioner should have approached the Civil Court or other forum, as may be available under the law, for redressal of his alleged claim for recovery of salary due to him Writ petition not maintainable. It is explicit that the petitioner suppressed the fact regarding the claim of respondent No. 5 and the direction of the One Member Grievance Committee at the time of filing of the petition. The petitioner has come out with the case that his salary dues are withheld on account of inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is difficult to appreciate that the petitioner was unaware about the reasons for nonpayment of the salary to him. In other words, the petitioner has suppressed certain material facts and has not come to the Court with clean hands. It is well settled that such a petition, in which material facts are suppressed, is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled, therefore, to invoke discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to his conduct of concealing the material facts. Writ jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked when disputed questions of fact are raised and require determination through adjudicatory process. Petition fails and is dismissed. (2005) 12 SCC 725, (2003) 1 Bom CR 251, (2003) 6 SCC 725, (2005) 8 SCC 264, Rel.
V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.
( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner herein has put forth claim for recovery of salary allegedly due and payable from 14th June, 1999, till date of the petition excluding two months - March and April, 2000. He seeks direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for release of his salary due withheld by them.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an assistant Teacher in respondent No. 3 - School as per recommendation of respondent No. 2 - Management in a vacant post, vide appointment order dated 5th March, 1999. There was a backlog of reserved vacancy and as such he was appointed on the post in the D. Ed. Scale w. e. f. 14th June, 1999 since he is a member of Scheduled Caste. Initially, his appointment was approved by the education Officer - respondent No. 1 and, therefore, respondent No. 3 submitted a supplementary pay bill for release of his salary for the period between 14th june, 1999 to 29th February, 2000. The supplementary pay bill was not honoured. His salary is withheld without any substantial reason. He was prevented from signing the muster roll. He filed proceedings in the School tribunal for redressal of his grievances. His Appeal No. 66 of 2000 before the school Tribunal was withdrawn by him as a result of settlement between him and respondent Nos. l to 3. He is entitled to recovery of salary due inasmuch as his appointment is on the post for which grant-in-aid scheme is applicable. Though he made representations for release of his salary, yet the same have not been favourably considered. Hence, the writ petition.
( 3 ) BY filing their reply affidavits, the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 have resisted the petition. They denied that the petitioner was appointed as an assistant Teacher and particularly that his appointment was approved. They contended that the petitioner is not a qualified teacher since his educational qualifications are B. A. and B. P. Ed. He does not have requisite qualification of b. Ed, necessary for appointment as Assistant Teacher. It is denied that the petitioner was given appointment letter filed by him by the then President of the school. It is averred that the petitioner was appointed as a part time Librarian. However, respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 29th October, 1999 refused to grant approval for such appointment because the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as Librarian. The petitioner had brought pressure on the then education Officer through organisation of backward class employees and got approval from the Education Officer on 31st December, 1999 under duress. The mistake was subsequently rectified by order dated 5th July, 2000 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the said approval was cancelled. It is averred that the petitioner had pressurised the Incharge Principal/head Mistress to submit wrong pay bill by filing false complaints under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The respondent No. 2 informed the respondent No. 1 to dishonour the pay bill since it was wrongly submitted. It is denied that the salary dues of the petitioner are withheld. It is contended that the petitioner is not at all entitled to claim any salary due in as much as he was not appointed as Assistant Teacher. It is further submitted by the contesting respondents that one Umesh Gopalrao Kadu was appointed as shikshan Sevak w. e. f. 16th September, 2002 and his services were terminated as directed by respondent No. 1 but the Grievance Committee has decided an appeal in his favour wherein claim of the petitioner is decided against him. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has set up false claim. Consequently, the respondents sought dismissal of the petition. 3a. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We have gone through the copies of relevant documents which are filed on record. It may be mentioned here that at the stage of admission of
