DILIPKUMR FANENDRANATH KATRE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred by an employee challenging the dismissal of his Appeal No. STC01/ 2006, by the School Tribunal, challenging his termination from the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) w.e.f. 29.11.2005. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and not PTI. There was further finding recorded that the petitioner manipulated the record to show his appointment as PTI. It has further recorded the finding that even if his appointment is considered as PTI, there was only one post of PTI, which was occupied by respondent no.5 and hence the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that there was no post for accommodating the petitioner in service.

(2.) THE undisputed factual position is that, the petitioner who was possessing the qualification of M.A.; B.P.Ed., was initially appointed on 9.7.2001 as PTI. Thereafter, again by issuing fresh orders of appointment dated 26.2.2002 and 30.4.2003, the petitioner was appointed as PTI. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Education Officer for a period of two years by an order dated 24.08.2004 w.e.f. 9.7.2001. On 17.1.2005, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that there is only one post of PTI which was occupied by respondent No.5. On the basis of this, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 29.11.2005, which was the subject matter of challenge in the appeal No. STC01/ 2006, before the School Tribunal, (Nagpur) Chandrapur. In view of this factual position, no fault can be found with the termination on the ground that there was no post available. Two persons could not be appointed to occupy only one post. The respondent no. 5 was senior to the petitioner.

(3.) IN view of above, no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the School Tribunal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No orders as to costs.