S R AMBEDKAR SAMITI Vs. M L LONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur Region, Nagpur, dated 13th November, 1990 in Appeal No. 117/1989.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondent No. 1 was appointed on purely temporary basis for one academic session 1985-86. At the relevant time the respondent No. 1 was an untrained teacher. However, the services of the respondent No. 1 were continued on year to year basis upto the academic year 1988-89. In the meantime with the permission of the petitioner the respondent No. 1 joined the D. Ed. Course for acquiring the requisite qualification. The petitioner had permitted the respondent No. 1 to pursue the said course during the vacation and also for requisite training. However, it appears that the respondent No. 1 was on medical leave from 6-10-88 to 6-5-89. There is no dispute that this medical leave was sanctioned by the petitioners. Before the medical leave was to the expire the respondent No. 1 sent a letter requesting for continuing the medical leave for a further period upto 25-6-89. The said request was made in writing and the copy of the letter was sent under certificate of posting alongwith the medical certificate. Since the respondent No. 1 did not receive any intimation from the petitioners, she presumed that the medical leave was extended as prayed for. Accordingly, when the respondent No. 1 went to report duty on 26-6-89, she was not allowed to join, instead she was told that her services stood terminated. By this attitude of the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 was shocked and made representation to the petitioners on 4-7-89. In response to the said representation, the petitioners have replied vide letter dated 17-7-89. In the said reply the petitioners have taken a stand that the services of the respondent No. 1 have been terminated since the respondent No. 1 had abandoned her services as she failed to report the duties even after the medical leave expired on 25-6-89.

(3.) THEREAFTER, respondent No. 1 made further representation on 24-7-89. Eventually, the matter went to the Tribunal by way of Appeal No. 117/89 at the instance of the respondent No. 1. The only point which was argued by the parties before the Tribunal was, whether the respondent No. 1 had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 16 (2) of the Rules and in the circumstances had abandoned the services. In this context respondent No. 1 relied upon the letter dated 6-5-89 sent under certificate of posting alongwith the medical certificate to contend that respondent No. 1 had made representation which was never rejected and therefore, it could be safely presumed that the petitioners had extended the medical leave as prayed for.