SHOBHA KARVE Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants before us claim to be the Assistant Teachers appointed in the Respondent No.3 School run by the Respondent No.2 and they are aggrieved by the decision delivered by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent Management challenging the order passed by the School Tribunal in favour of each of them. We have before us three Letters Patent Appeals. However, since the learned Single Judge has delivered a lead judgment in Writ Petition No.663/2006 filed by the Management in case of Smt. Shobha Karve and has followed the said decision in other two Writ Petitions i.e. WP No.5450/2007 and WP No. 5439/2007, we glean the facts in case of Smt. Shobha Karve, Respondent in WP No. 663/2006.

(2.) The case of Smt. Shobha Karve, who approached the School Tribunal being aggrieved by her 'otherwise termination' is that pursuant to a resolution passed by the School Committee on 3rd June 1996, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Kamla Nehru Prathamik Shala, Chinchwad, Pune, run by Nehru Shikshan Sanstha. The said school is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government from the year 1990-91 and was running classes from Std. I to Std. VII. Needless to state that being in receipt of the grant, it was governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools, 1977 and Rules of 1981. The case of the appellant before the School Tribunal was that she possessed the qualification of B.A, B.P.Ed and that she was issued an order of appointment on 7th June 1996 in the pay scale of Rs.1200- 2040 and on receipt of the order of appointment she resumed her duties. She further claimed that her appointment was against a permanent vacancy and the order of appointment stated that the appointment would be on probation for a period of two years. On her services being terminated with effect from 9th July 2004, she approached the School Tribunal, Pune Region, under Section 9 of the MEPS Act challenging her 'otherwise termination' and the Appeal was numbered as Appeal No.22/2004. In the Appeal, she moved an application for grant of stay and an ex-parte order was granted in her favour. The ex-parte interim order was however vacated and the Appeal filed by the respondent came to be finally allowed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal on 29th November 2005, thereby setting aside the termination of the respondent and with a direction to reinstate with continuity in service with full back wages and by conferring other consequential benefits.

(3.) The Management being aggrieved by the said order assailed the same in a filed Writ Petition and pertinent to note that in case of other two appellants an order of reinstatement came to be passed by the School Tribunal, the details of which would be set out at a subsequent point of time. In the Writ Petition, the Respondent Management attached the order on the ground that the School Tribunal did not take into account the illegality committed by one Shri Bharat Oval working as Head Master of Kamla Nehru Primary School at the relevant time and who was instrumental in appointing the appellants illegally by forging certain resolutions. The contention of the appellants/Assistant Teachers that their appointments are pursuant to a resolution passed by the School Committee was attributed as an act of fraud and it was averred that no such resolution was validly passed and in fact in the subsequent meeting of the School Committee held on 29th April 1998, when it was disclosed that one Mrs. Barve who had signed the said resolution was not present in the said meeting and her signature was obtained subsequently. Affirming the said fact and as a consequence, the Resolution No.7 in the meeting held on 3rd June 1996 itself was cancelled. It was then averred that the Respondent was in excess of the sanctioned staff and it was at the instance of the Head Master Bharat Oval, Smt. Shobha Karve was granted a permission for training of the postal D.Ed course and it was also a submission of the Respondent Management that at the time of appointment, Smt. Shobha Karve was not qualified educationally to hold the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school. The claim of the two appellants was opposed on the ground that they were over age at the time of appointment and in all, what was claimed before the learned Single Judge by the management while assailing the orders passed by the School Tribunal was that the appointment of the appellant was obnoxiously illegal and the order of the School Tribunal granting relief in their favour therefore called for an interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Along with the petition, copy of the resolutions as well as the action initiated against Shri Bharat Kumar Oval for appointing the staff in excess of the sanctioned strength issued by the Education Board of the Chinchwad Municipal Corporation are also placed on record. The order of appointment of the appellant was alleged to be ipso facto void and illegal and since it was effected at the instance of the Head Master, the Management claimed that it was not binding. It was also submitted that criminal proceedings were initiated against Shri Bharat Oval for illegally recruitment of certain persons and he is no longer in the service of the management.