SWAMI VIVEKANAND SOCIETY Vs. SAU PRERANA VASANT JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Management is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court which dismissed the Letters Patent appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The matter had been carried to the learned Single Judge in a writ petition against the order of the School Tribunal. The respondents were appointed as Assistant teachers by the Management when the school was not an aided educational institution. After the school was inducted into the grant-in-aid scheme, the Education Officer inspected the school and indicated that the appointment of teachers not being approved, the Government would not be bound to pay their salary as grant-in-aid. The management, therefore, terminated the services of the respondents by order dated 1-7-1996. The respondents filed an appeal before the School Tribunal and while the matter was pending before the School Tribunal, the Government of Maharashtra issued a circular dated 5-11-1997 for regularisation of un-trained teachers. The School Tribunal disposed of the application of the teachers in holding that the order of termination is illegal. Against the said order of the School Tribunal dated 03-04-1998, the Management approached the High Court in a writ petition. That writ petition having been dismissed by a learned Single Judge by order dated 21-07-1998, the matter was carried in appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bench having dismissed the same by order dated 6-08-1998, the present appeals have been preferred.

(2.) Mr. Mohta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-Management contended that under the provisions of the relevant rules/regulations, appointment of a teacher in an institution is required to be approved by the competent Educational Authority, namely, the Educational Officer of Zilla Parishad and undisputedly the appointments of these respondents had not been approved by the said competent Authority. He further contended that the so-called regularisation circular issued on 5th of November, 1997 unequivocally indicates that the services of un-trained teachers could be continued provided they had been appointed in a recognised school and their appointments were duly approved by the competent educational Officers (Zila Parishad) or Divisional Deputy Director of Education up to june 1997. Since admittedly there has been no approval of the aforesaid competent Educational Authority even the circular in question would not apply. The School Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, was in error in interfering with an order of termination passed by the Management. We find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention. If under the relevant provisions appointment to the post of the teacher is required to be approved by the competent Educational Authority, then any appointment without such approval is null and void and would not confer any right on the appointee. That apart, even the circular providing for regularisation made it crystal clear that only those un-trained teachers whose appointment had been approved by the competent Authority, their services may be regularised. Since in the case in hand, the appointment of these respondents had not been approved by the competent Educational Authority, neither the appointment would confer any right nor even the circular for regularisation. In that view of the matter, the order of the School Tribunal as well as that of the High Court stand set aside and these appeals are allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.