SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent the judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4989/2008 dtd. 15/2/2010 is under challenge. By that judgment the writ petition preferred by the appellant praying that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 be directed to reinstate the appellant on the post of 'Assistant Teacher ' with back wages and all other consequential benefits as the Government Resolution dtd. 10/2/1994 was not applicable to the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts relevant for adjudication of the Letters Patent Appeal are that the appellant was appointed as an untrained teacher at the respondent no.4-School run by the respondent no.3-Society. His appointment was for session 1990-91. Thereafter on 29/6/1991 the appellant was again appointed as an untrained teacher for the session 1991-92. Since the appellant was an untrained teacher, he was permitted to acquire B.Ed training qualification on 5/5/1992. It is his case that on 25/6/1992 the appellant was not permitted to join duties and therefore he filed an appeal bearing No.110/1992 before the School Tribunal seeking reinstatement. On 22/7/1992 the School Tribunal directed interim reinstatement of the appellant. Since this order was not complied with, the appellant filed Contempt Petition No.220/1992. On 5/3/1993 the appellant was reinstated in service but thereafter on 30/3/1993 his services were again terminated. The appellant therefore filed an appeal bearing No.73/1993 before the School Tribunal challenging the order of termination. On 26/4/1994 the earlier appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and thereafter on 20/10/1999 the subsequent appeal also came to be dismissed. The appellant acquired B.Ed. training qualification in May 1998. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.1833/1994 for challenging initial dismissal of his appeal on 26/4/1994. Since the other appeal filed by the appellant also dismissed on 20/10/1999, that order was also challenged in Writ Petition No.1833/1994 by amending the same. The learned Single Judge on 19/9/2005 decided that writ petition and held that the effect of acquisition of training qualification in May 1998 was required to be considered in the light of second proviso to Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the Rules of 1981). It was noted that there was also a deed of compromise between the parties by which the respondent nos. 3 and 4 accepted the stand of the appellant of giving up his back wages, if he was reinstated in service. The learned Single Judge therefore directed the Education Officer (Secondary) to consider the effect of acquisition of training qualification in May 1998. On 27/10/2005 the Education Officer passed an order in the said proceedings. In Writ Petition No.5771/2005 preferred by the Management, the Division Bench on 23/11/2005 set aside that order as it was passed in breach of principles of natural justice. The proceedings were again remanded to the Education Officer. Ultimately, on 21/1/2006 the Education Officer (Secondary) passed an order holding that the period for acquiring training qualification was only upto 1/6/1995 and as the appellant had acquired training qualification after that date, he was not entitled to the benefit of the same. It is in that backdrop that Writ Petition No. 4989/2008 came to be filed. As noted above, the learned Single Judge dismissed that writ petition by observing that all challenges to the order of termination had been decided in Writ Petition No.1833/1994 including the effect of Government Resolution dtd. 10/2/1994. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) Since the appellant was appearing in person, by the order dtd. 15/11/2021 the parties were directed to place on record written notes of arguments. Accordingly the appellant as well as the respondent nos. 3 and 4 have placed on record their notes of arguments alongwith the decisions on which they seek to place reliance. We have thus perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties alongwith the decisions on which they seek to place reliance. We have also given due consideration to the rival submissions.