BHARTIYA MAHILA MANDAL Vs. CHAGAN PAVLASA BHALEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25th March, 2011 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 51/2004. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This petition has been filed by the Secretary of Bhartiya Mahila Mandal Chavani, Aurangabad and Headmistress of Holi Child English School, CIDCO, Aurangabad. According to the respondent No. 1, the oral termination is by the petitioner No. 2. There is some dispute raised about filing this petition by the petitioner No. 1 as Secretary. Instead of going into that controversy, this petition is considered only on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 Headmistress of the said school.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the school tribunal has not considered the provisions of section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, referred to as the MEPS Act). At the relevant time, the respondent No. 1 was not duly qualified for the appointment as Assistant Teacher. The School Tribunal has misread the documents which were produced on record and reached to the erroneous conclusion that the respondent No. 1 has been appointed on permanent vacancy and further in view of subsection (2) of section 5 of the MEPS Act, after completion of two years, the respondent No. 1 has become deemed permanent employee of the school. He also submitted that necessary points which were required to be framed by the school tribunal for the adjudication of the appeal have not been framed as per the judgment of this Court in case of Anna Manikrao Pethe vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Amravati and others, 1997 3 MhLJ 697. He also invited my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench in case of Priyadarshini Education Trust and others vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano d/o Abdul Rasheed and others, 2007 6 MhLJ 667 and submitted that in order to claim the benefit of deemed permanency, a teacher must be duly qualified and selected. The learned Counsel further submitted that by a cryptic judgment and order, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 came to be allowed. The School Tribunal has also not considered that from 2004 till disposal of the appeal, the respondent No. 1 has not worked. The tribunal has granted relief of back wages even in absence of any affidavit on record by the respondent No. 1 stating therein that he was not gainfully employed during that period. It is submitted that though the proposal for approval was forwarded to the Education Officer, the said proposal was turned down on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was not duly qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. Therefore, relying upon the pleadings, grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed.