SHAIKH BARKATULLAH HUSSEIN Vs. MUSLIM EDUCATION COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed to challenge the order of the School Tribunal dated 22.9.2008 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is qualified with M.A. and B.Ed, degrees. The management of the school advertised the vacancy for the posts of teachers in different subjects. One of the vacancies advertised was for a part-time teacher in the subject of Marathi for the Urdu medium school of the management i.e. respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner applied for the post on 21.1.1990 and was called for an interview. Since the petitioner passed the interview, he was issued a letter calling upon him to appear for the teaching test which was held on 13.2.1998. He was successful in that test also. On 14.2.1998 respondent No. 2 issued an appointment letter to the petitioner as a part-time teacher in respondent No. 2 school. The appointment letter clearly states that his appointment was on probation for two years on a monthly salary of Rs. 700/- in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-2600. On 13.1.2000, a letter was issued to the petitioner informing him that the probation period of two years was coming to an end. The petitioner continued to work in the academic year i.e. 2000-2001. However, on 31.3.2001, the management informed the petitioner that his services would come to an end on 30.4.2001 as he was a part-time teacher of the school. Aggrieved by this decision of the management to terminate his services, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 110 of 2001 before the School Tribunal. Since there was a delay in approaching the School Tribunal, the petitioner also filed an application for condoning the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal on 12.8.2005 after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Although respondent No. 4 filed his written statement, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the management of the school, failed to do so. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the appeal on merits without the written statement of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being placed on record. Arguments were heard and the matter was fixed for orders. It appears that on 25.5.2008 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requested the Tribunal to set aside the order of "No written statement" passed against them and sought permission to allow them to file the written statement. The permission was disallowed due to which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 231 of 2008. The order of the Tribunal was set aside by this Court on 28.4.2008. The Tribunal was directed to take on record the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and was further directed to decide the matter expeditiously.

(3.) After taking on record the written statement and after hearing the parties, the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The Tribunal was of the view that since the petitioner was appointed as a part-time teacher, he was a temporary employee. According to the Tribunal, the management had not violated any provisions of law by terminating the services of the petitioner by giving him one month's notice as he was a temporary employee. Hence the present petition.