GEETA PRADEP BHAGWAT Vs. SARVAJANIK SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule, Respondents waive service. By consent of parties rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner is working with respondent No. 2 school since 20. 7. 1999 as assistant teacher. The respondent no. 2 school is a recognised and aided school which is managed by respondent no. 1 trust. The petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher on 20. 7. 1999 on probation subject to approval by the Education Officer North Zone. By letter dated 24. 4. 2000 the Education Officer instructed the school that the payment for the appointment of the petitioner should be borne out and paid by the management of the school as the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved. The correctness and legality of the said communication dated 24. 4. 2000 is questioned in the present petition.

(3.) AS per the staffing pattern sanctioned for the respondent No. 2 school for the year 1999-2000, the total strength of the teaching and non teaching staff is 30. The break up of the staffing pattern is an under :<FRM>JUDGEMENT_54_ALLMR4_2001Html1.htm</FRM>