Chhaparband Nvid Ali Khurshid Ali vs The President, Gram Vikas Mandal, Pimpalgaon Hareshwar, Tal. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. Advocate - Shirode Devendrakumar B. — 33/2024

Case under Mah.employees of Private School Conditions of Service Regulation Act, 1977 Section 9. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Appeal

CNR: MHSS150000492024

Filing Number

49/2024

Filing Date

26-Jul-2024

Registration No

33/2024

Registration Date

26-Jul-2024

Court

School Tribunal, Nashik Region, Nashik

Judge

1-Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT

Last updated 20-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah.employees of Private School Conditions of Service Regulation Act, 1977 Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Chhaparband Nvid Ali Khurshid Ali

    Adv. Bhavsar Mahendra M

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The President, Gram Vikas Mandal, Pimpalgaon Hareshwar, Tal. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. Advocate - Shirode Devendrakumar B.

  2. 2.The HeadMaster, Smt. S,K.Pawar Madyamic Aashram shala, Varsade Tanda, Tal. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon.

    Adv. Shirode Devendrakumar B.

  3. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The School Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against his termination from a Laboratory Assistant position. The court found that the appellant lacked the required H.S.C. Science qualification (he held only H.S.C. Arts), the appointment was made without proper government approval, and he failed to complete the mandatory two-year probation period. Though the management's method of retroactive termination was irregular, the appellant was not entitled to reinstatement given his initial appointment violated procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  5. 26-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  7. 11-Dec-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  8. 11-Dec-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  9. 11-Dec-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  10. 11-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  11. 13-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  12. 09-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  13. 11-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  14. 28-Aug-2025

    Appearance

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  15. 24-Jul-2025

    Appearance

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  16. 12-Jun-2025

    Appearance

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  17. 06-Mar-2025

    Appearance

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  18. 30-Jan-2025

    Appearance

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  19. 05-Dec-2024

    Appearance

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  20. 14-Nov-2024

    Appearance

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  21. 24-Oct-2024

    Appearance

    Presiding Officer School Tribunal Nashik Region

  22. 19-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 26-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 33/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The School Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against his termination from a Laboratory Assistant position. The court found that the appellant lacked the required H.S.C. Science qualification (he held only H.S.C. Arts), the appointment was made without proper government approval, and he failed to complete the mandatory two-year probation period. Though the management's method of retroactive termination was irregular, the appellant was not entitled to reinstatement given his initial appointment violated procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case