GEETA Vs. PRINCIPAL RAMNAGAR BHARAT VIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Parchure with Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for respondent No. 4. Nobody had appeared for respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. management.

(2.) In this petition filed under Articles of 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the challenge is to the judgment dated 28.10.1998 delivered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. STN/66 of 1995 upholding the order of termination dated 29.03.1995 issued by the management terminating services of present petitioner from 30.04.1995.

(3.) The short contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is there was an advertisement in 1989-90 and as the petitioner fulfilled qualifications prescribed therein, she applied and was duly selected. She was accordingly appointed initially for Session 1989-90 and continued till 1994-95. The learned Counsel states that in service book, the appointment has been shown as appointment on probation. However, as approval was given from year to year basis, the management has also issued some orders on year to year basis. The Deputy Director of Education on 15.03.1995 communicated to the management that approval in her case was being extended till 30.04.1995 as a special case. Because of this communication, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner challenged that termination and during pendency of appeal before the School Tribunal, because of interim stay, she continued to serve. After School Tribunal dismissed her appeal, this Court again protected her service on 16.11.1998 and, therefore, the petitioner is in service even today. The learned Counsel has pointed out that thus the petitioner has put in more than 20 years of service and very short span is left till her superannuation. The learned Counsel does not dispute that Schedule B of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Rules) required the petitioner to possess B.Sc. Degree in Home Science in first division and the petitioner holds it in second division. However, by inviting attention to Schedule C, Part VI, dealing with Technical group, the learned Counsel has pointed out that in Food Technology group, for Full Time Teacher, two separate pay-scales are prescribed. Pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200 is prescribed for those who are "Adequately qualified" while pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 is prescribed for those who are "Inadequately qualified". Attention is invited to reply filed by the Deputy Director of Education before the School Tribunal to urge that there the Deputy Director of Education has stated that approval was given to services of the petitioner under relaxation and in pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 i.e. applicable to Inadequately qualified candidates. The learned Counsel, therefore, argues that reason given by the School Tribunal for termination is wholly unsustainable and order of termination is liable to be quashed and set aside.