SHIVDUTTA EDUCATION TRUST Vs. HARISHCHANDRA RAJABALI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions can be decided by this common judgment as the facts are identical. These writ petitions are filed under the provisions of Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 17th October, 2011 in Appeals Nos. 17 of 2009 and 18 of 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai. The facts leading to the litigation can be stated as under.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is the Education Trust which runs a School at Kandivali (E), Mumbai. On 16th June, 2000 under a Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra, the petitioner No. 1 appointed the respondents (respondent No. 1 in both the cases) as Shikshan Sevak on payment of honorarium. As per the Government Resolution, this appointment was approved by the concerned Officer of the Government. The Scheme of Shikshan Sevak was subject-matter of writ petition and certain order was passed by this Court. So in October, 2000, a new Government Resolution was issued for implementing this scheme with little modification. Soon after the Government Resolution was issued on 19th November, 2000, the petitioner No. 1 issued revised appointment letter to the respondents. The petitioner No. 1 after assessing the performance of the respondents terminated their contracts w.e.f 30th April, 2001. Aggrieved respondents went before the grievance committee in an Appeal. It allowed their appeal on 8th October, 2003 and directed the petitioner No. 1 to reappoint the respondents with immediate effect. It held that the period in between was not to be counted as continuation of service. Accordingly, on 3rd December, 2003 the respondents were reappointed. This time, the contractual period was of 25 months 17 days. Their contract was ending on 16th January, 2006. On 20th January 2006 on the basis of performance appraisal of the respondents, the petitioner No. 1 decided not to continue the contract of the respondents. They informed them vide their letter dated 16th January, 2006 that their services were not required w.e.f. 20th January, 2006. In other words, their services were not continued after the contractual period. The respondents again filed appeals before the grievance committee. During the pendency of this appeals, the MEPS Act came to be amended w.e.f. 30th April, 2007. So on 30th March, 2009 the respondents withdrew their appeals and took them before the School Tribunal. That is how their appeals Nos. 17 of 2009 and 18 of 2009 came before the School Tribunal.

(3.) The respondents came up with a case that since they have completed 3 years of probation period, they are deemed to be appointed as Assistant Teachers and if the petitioner No. 1 had intended to terminate their services, they ought to have held a departmental enquiry. They also contended that if it is held that during the pendency of the probation period their services were terminated, the petitioner No. 1 ought to have given them either a notice of one month or a salary of one month.