POONA JESUIT SCHOOLS SOCIETY Vs. PETTER DHAVJI BASUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises a substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of certain rules framed by the Government of Maharashtra under the Bombay Primary Education Act 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". In exercise of the powers conferred upon the State Government by section 63 of the said Act, the Government has made rules which are known as the Bombay Primary Education Rules 1949, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". The question relates to the status under the Act and the rules of a teacher appointed by a private school which is recognised under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) The facts of the present case disclose that the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff", was appointed as a teacher in the year 1958 in a school conducted by the appellants, hereinafter referred to as "the defendants". Admittedly, the appointment was oral and there is no document which would indicate that he was made a permanent teacher. By a notice dated 15th Nov. 1972, the services of the plaintiff were terminated which lid him to file a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 1973, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Sangamner. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was a permanent teacher employed by the defendants and the order terminating his services was illegal and was invalid in law and could not, therefore, legally bring to an end his services. He, therefore, prayed for a declaration that he continued to be in service as an assistant teacher in St. Mary's School at Sangamner and for an injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff in continuing in service.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants by contending in the first place that the plaintiff was not a permanent servant and he was not entitled to any notice before his services were terminated. They also mentioned that they were forced to terminate the services of the plaintiff on account of lack of professional qualifications on his part. Therefore, he was not entitled to any relief claimed by him.