MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION AND JUNIOR COLLAGES OF EDUCATION OF THE CHURCH OF NORTH INDIA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER ADDITIONAL SCHOOL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Heard Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bhure, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Patel, a. G. P. for respondents Nos. 1 and 3.

(2.) THE petitioners in this petition are the Management and the Head Mistress of Mission High School, Ganeshpur, Bhandara, as petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively. In this petition, they have challenged the judgment delivered on 29-1-2004 by respondent No. 1- School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal S. T. N. No. 143 of 1992. The said appeal was filed by the present respondent No. 2 shri Gajbhiiye, challenging the order/certificate dated 26-6-1992 by which he was reverted from the post of Head Master of Mission High School, Bhandara, to the post of Assistant Teacher. Respondent No. 3 in the present petition is the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, who is the approving authority for all appointments/petitions made by the petitioners. The appeal mentioned above was filed by Shri Gajbhiye under section 9 of the maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1977), contending that he was appointed to the post of Head Master and as such he could not have been everted to the post of Assistant Teacher.

(3.) IN this appeal memo, he has pointed out that he was originally appointed as Assistant Teacher with petitioner No. 1 management on 26-6-1967 and he worked as in-charge Head Master from 1-9-1990 to 25-6-1991. He further states that during this period, his work was excellent and there were no complaints against him and no adverse remarks were communicated to him at any point of time. He further states that the post of Head master of mission High School, Bhandara, became vacant and an advertisement was issued by the management for filling in that post. In response to that advertisement, he applied and interviews were held on 1-5-1991. He further states that he was selected and given appointment on probation vide appointment letter dated 24-6-1991 with effect from 24-6-1991. He further mentions that his appointment as Head Master was challenged before the School Tribunal by another Assistant Teacher Shri A. P. Shinde vide Appeal No. S. T. No. 156 of 1991 and in this appeal the management filed written statement mentioning that the appellant (Shri Gajbhiye) was not promoted but was selected for appointment as Head Master after being interviewed. The Education Officer refused to give approval to the appointment of Shri Gajbhiye as Head Master and the management challenged this action of Education Officer before the high Court in Writ Petition No. 881 of'1992. The High Court vide its order dated 30-4-1991 directed the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, to grant approval to the appointment of Shri Gajbhiye and accordingly, the Education Officer granted approval in his favour. He further states that he worked satisfactory all throughout and his period of probation was to expire on 25-6-1992 and he was to be continued further. He states that on 26-6-1992, he approached the management for obtaining the experience certificate since he was thinking of also applying to other schools in search of better prospects, the Secretary of Management issued certificate dated 26-6-1992 mentioning 423 therein that the work of Shri Gajbhiye was satisfactory. However, in the said certificate, it was also mentioned that after expiry of period of probation, shri Gajbhiye stands reverted back to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 26-6-1992. This certificate/order issued by the secretary was challenged before the School Tribunal on various grounds including the ground that he was never promoted as Head Master but was appointed after due selection process and as such he could not have been reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher. He further mentioned that there was no adverse remarks against him and his work was extremely satisfactory and there was no reason to revert him.