PRALAHAD VITTHALRAO BHUSARI Vs. NEW IDEAL EDUCATION SOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under'article 226 of the constitution of India the petitioner employee challenges the order of termination issued by respondent No. 1 management terminating him w. e. f. 7-4-1989 and the judgment delivered by School Tribunal on 9th july, 1991 rejecting his appeal. Necessary facts in this respect can be briefly stated as under:

(2.) THE petitioner who is science graduate of Nagpur University came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (untrained) to teach mathematics by respondent no. 1 Educational Institution by its order dated 29-7-1983. Thereafter orders have been issued to him on yearly basis for academic year 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and lastly for academic year 1988-1989. All these appointment orders are delivered in each academic session and in clear vacancy. The Education Officer i. e. respondent No. 3 also granted approval to this appointment every year on early basis. The petitioner, thus, worked with respondent No. 1 from 1983-1989. The petitioner states that respondent No. 1 society runs two schools and the services of staff are transferable from one school to another as per provisions of Maharashtra Employees Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short 'm. E. P. S. Rules ). He states that he has worked in both the schools during this period. It is his case that as his service record was clean and unblemished he was sent on deputation as in service candidate to complete his B. Ed. qualification in vacation course held by Janta Shikshan Sanstha, Chandrapur in November, 1987. The petitioner states that he completed the said course in 1987-88 and 1988-89 and ap-peared for examination of Nagpur University in March, 1989. The result was declared in June, 1989 and he acquired B. Ed, degree in 1989.

(3.) THE petitioner points out that the Government of Maharashtra through its department of Education and Employment Planning issued resolutions on 12th August, 1987 and 28th August, 1990. The teachers in service were required to complete their B. Ed, by 1st June, 1990 and by latter resolution said time limit was extended till July, 1991. The petitioner states that he has secured B. Ed, training qualification within last date stipulated above and his appointment was against the clear permanent vacancy and he was regular employee. He states that he has put in 6 years of continuous service and as such he could not have been terminated by the management by impugned order of termination dated 7th April, 1989. Perusal of the said order reveals that the School Committee has terminated the petitioner on the ground that he is untrained and the Education department has granted approval to his appointment only for academic year 1988-89. Though in this order of termination, dated 7-4-1989 it is mentioned that the resolution to that effect has been passed on 6th July, 1989 and he is being terminated from 8th May, 1989, the petitioner states that after obtaining B,ed. qualification he has submitted B. Ed, certificate to respondent No. 1 and reported for duty on opening date of the academic session 1989-90 on 26-6-1989 in normal course, but he was not permitted to join the duties. Therefore, on 13-7-1989 he filed an appeal under section 9-A of M. E. P. S. Act before the School Tribunal at nagpur. He further pointed out that after his termination advertise was published on 29-7-1989 in Newspaper 'nagpur Patrika' and on 31-7-1999 in Newspaper 'lokmat and another untrained person has been appointed to teach mathematics. He further states that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement mentioning therein that the petitioner was untrained employee working for a specific period and his appointment was temporary. It is stated by the respondents that services of the petitioner came to an end automati-catty at the end of each academic session and as per approval granted by respondent No. 3 Education Officer. It is stated that respondent No. 3 issued letter dated 10-4-1989 and 11-4-1989 to terminate all untrained temporary teachers appointed for one session and accordingly services of petitioners were terminated by order dated 7-4-1989. They have further stated that petitioner should have applied in response to advertisement dated 29-7-1989 or 31-7-1989. As the petitioner did not apply he has not been selected. The school Tribunal after hearing both the sides delivered impugned order and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide its judgment dated 9th July, 1991. It is this background the petitioner has approached this Court.