JEEVAN VIKAS EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/management is aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, on 14.12.2001 granting benefit of sixty years as age of retirement to respondent no.4 as Assistant Teacher. The learned authority has considered various Circulars regarding the age of retirement and, in our opinion, he has rightly given the benefit of sixty years as the age of retirement considering the provisions of M.P. Secondary Education Act; 1951. We find no error of law in the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Education while treating him as permanent employee on 31.12.1965 having completed continuous period of one year on that date.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the respondent no.4 was appointed by an order of appointment dated 29.6.1964 with effect from 01.07.1964. This order was in a permanent vacancy of Assistant Teacher. It was up to 30.4.1965. He was again given another order of appointment on 01.07.1965 up to 30.04.1966. By an order dated 05.05.1965, the petitioner -management has referred to the appointment order dated 29.6.1964 and has communicated to him that the said order is being continued from 01.05.1965 until further orders. The respondent no.4 is still in service. There is no other order issued by the management which can be construed as confirmation of the respondent no.4. The alleged letter undated appears to have been signed by the Joint Secretary which is tried to be construed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as an appointment on probation period. Apart from the fact that the said appointment order does not bear the date on which it was issued, there is no evidence or no averment in the petition that the respondent no.4 had received the said so -called appointment order and whether the Joint Secretary had authority to issue such order. It is further significant to note that the order dated 05.05.1965 continuing the appointment of respondent no.4 is on the letterhead of the management and is properly signed by the Secretary. We, therefore, find no error of fact or law in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Education granting the respondent no.4 benefit of the extension of the age of retirement up to 60 years as provided under Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. There is no substance in the writ petition. Hence the same is rejected.