ASHOK ASRAMJI GABHANE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Haq, learned Counsel the respondent Nos. 2-A and 3 and Shri Agrawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Though respondent No. 2 is not noticed, however, since petitioner is not claiming any relief against him, petition is heard finally by consent of contesting respondents.

(2.) THE petition is directed against the order dated 23-3-2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 for setting aside order of termination came to be dismissed.

(3.) SHRI Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner was appointed by the respondent Management vide orders dated 20-6-1991, 16-12-1991 and 24-6-1993. The appointment was against the permanent post. The petitioner has worked for more than two years. The petitioner, therefore, is a confirmed employee and his appointment is as per section 5 (2) of the Act. The learned Counsel further states that Head Master of the school vide relieving certificate dated 9-5-1993 permitted the petitioner to undertake D. Ed. course (Vacation) and it was also mentioned in the said document that after completion of the said course, the petitioner would be absorbed in service. It is contended that the petitioner has completed D. Ed. course (Vacation) in 1995. It is contended that action of the respondent Management in not allowing petitioner to resume duty from 1-8-1994 amounted to otherwise termination and, therefore, petitioner preferred appeal before the School Tribunal under section 9 of the Act against this action of the respondents. The impugned order is assailed by the petitioner on the following grounds: