ITWARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Ghatate appearing for the appellant contended that the teacher (respondent No. 3) who had been directed to be re-instated by the Deputy Director of Education should not have been so re-instated. He further contended that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to order such re-instatement. The dismissal which was set aside by the Educational Authorities in appeal was on certain charges, only one of which was stated to have been proved and the charge was that the teachers had gone on fast for a few days. The Deputy Director and the Director, therefore, cancelled the dismissal and directed re-instatement. This order was challenged in the High Court under Art. 226 but the appeal was dismissed in limine.

(2.) We have heard the arguments of counsel but we do not think that this is a case where any substantial question of law calls for decision specially having regard to the charge for which the dismissal has been imposed. We are satisfied that this is a case where we are not called upon to decide any question of law.

(3.) We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and this means that the teacher (respondent No. 3) will stand re-instated and be eligible for his salary right from the date of dismissal. Dr. Ghatate complains that the State makes a grant which covers the salaries of teachers and if respondent No. 3 was to be paid the entire salary, the grant will not be available to that extent for other expenses. While the State has no direct liability, it is perfectly open to the appellant Management to move the State Government for recouping the grant equivalent to the teacher's salary. In view of the changed circumstances and direction for re-instatement with back pay, the State will consider the equities of the situation regarding the claim of the management. With these directions we dismiss the appeal.