SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2006, passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, in Appeal No. 74/2000 filed by the respondent no. 3 employee, challenging his termination from service w.e.f. 30.06.1996 from the post of Instructor. The tribunal has set aside the order of termination and directed the reinstatement with continuity in service. The claim for backwages has been denied. The employer is, therefore, before this Court in this writ petition.

(2.) THE respondent no. 3 - Vishwambhar Govindrao Garud was appointed as an Instructor in the Vocational School run by the petitioner society by order dated 31.07.1995. The order states that the appointment is on temporary basis for the session 199596 till the end of session. The Deputy Director, Vocational Education and Training by his order dated 1.12.1997 granted approval to the appointment of the respondent no. 3 as full time Instructor in the pay scale of Rs.14002600/-, upon relaxation of condition regarding obtaining of certificate and possession of experience. The approval was granted for the period from 03.08.1995 to 30.04.1996 i.e. for only one session. The services of the respondent no. 3 were terminated w.e.f. 30.06.1996. This was the subject matter of challenge in Appeal No. 74/2000 filed by the respondent no. 3 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Act for short).

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management is that, even assuming that the appointment of the respondent no. 3 was in a clear and permanent vacancy, still he was not eligible and qualified for being appointed to the post of full time Instructor and hence, the appointment was made purely on temporary basis for a period of one year. Since the respondent no. 3 was not having the requisite qualification and experience, the question of treating his appointment on probation does not arise and the tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in holding that the appointment should have been made on probation. In view of this, the basic question arises for consideration is whether the respondent no. 3 possesses the essential qualification and experience for being appointed as a full time Instructor (Electrical) in the school run by the petitioner.