GULAB Vs. P O SCHOOL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 26.3.2002 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, by which the School Tribunal has merely allowed the petitioners' salary for the period from 31.3.1997 till 22.1.1998. The petitioners had approached the Tribunal against their termination dated 31.3.1997 and sought reinstatement with back wages. A bare reading of the order of the School Tribunal does not disclose the relevance of the date 31.3.1997 as to why the salary is granted from 31.3.1997 to 22.1.1998. The Tribunal has not stated the relevance of the two dates. It would have been difficult to find out the relevance without the assistance at the bar and a reading of the pleadings of the case. The final order of the Tribunal merely allows salary as above and denies all other reliefs.

(3.) THE petitioner has been found to be untrained teacher who was required to be appointed on year to year basis, as observed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given no reason as to why the teacher should have been appointed on a year to year basis. Presumably, it is because of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Employees' of Private Schools Rules 1981. It would have been desirable if the Tribunal had made it explicit why it was taking the view it did. The thing that is clear from the judgment is that the petitioner being untrained ought not to have been appointed on probation.