AMRAPALI Vs. VIDYABHARATI SHAIKSHINIK MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dtd. 06/04/2010 in Writ Petition No.5865/2006 as well as the order passed in Misc. Civil Application No.472/2010 dtd. 03/05/2010.

(2.) The facts in brief are that it is the case of the appellant that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 the appellant came to be appointed as a full time Instructor in the M.C.V.C. course conducted by the respondent No.2. The order of appointment was dtd. 08/08/1994 and it was till the end of academic session 1994-95. Approval to the appellant's appointment was also granted. Thereafter on 22/04/1995 the appointment of the appellant came to be continued and that appointment was further approved till the end of session 1995-96. It is then the case of the appellant that a fresh order of appointment was issued to her on 30/11/1995 which order of appointment was on probation. Approval was again granted on 13/11/1996 which was to operate till the end of academic session 1996-97. Yet another order of appointment was issued to the appellant on 10/12/1997 appointing her till the end of academic session 1997-98. The academic session 1997-98 came to an end on 30/04/1998 and the appellant on 03/06/1998 made an application seeking grant of maternity leave. It is her case that further applications to the same effect were made on 14/07/1998 and 25/08/1998. The appellant sought to report for duty on 14/09/1998 but she was not permitted to join her duties and hence in November 1998 she preferred an appeal under Sec. 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the said Act). Alongwith the appeal she also filed an application for condonation of delay on the premise that her services were sought to be terminated with effect from 30/04/1998.

(3.) Reply was filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the appeal. It was stated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the services of the appellant came to an end at the end of academic session 1997-98. The appellant had handed over the charge of her post on 04/05/1998. Thereafter a fresh advertisement was issued pursuant to which the appellant as well as respondent No.4 had applied. The respondent No.4 was duly selected and she was holding the said post. It was further pleaded that the appellant had no right to hold the post in question inasmuch as she was not having the requisite experience for being appointed permanently.