SECRETARY LUCY SEQUEIRA TRUST Vs. SUSHMA PRAMOD UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is a Public Charitable trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and conducts an educational institution by the name of Fatimadevi English high School. The first respondent was appointed as an assistant teacher on probation with effect from 24th June, 1998 subject to approval, in a clear vacancy. On 28th December, 1998, the Education Inspector granted approval to the appointment of the first respondent for the period from 30th June, 1998 till 30th April, 1999. On 26th March, 1999 the services of the first respondent were terminated on the ground that the Education Inspector had sanctioned the appointment of the first respondent only for the academic year 1998-99. Thereafter, the first respondent was once again appointed by the petitioners on probation for a period of two years with effect from 14th June, 1999. By a communication dated 22nd July, 1999, the education Inspector declined to grant approval to the proposal submitted by the petitioners stating thus: "it has come to the notice of this office that teacher Smt. Sushma Upadhyay of your school is B. Com. , B. Ed. In the proposal submitted by you for approval you have mentioned that she is M. A. , B. Ed, and you have misguided this office and obtained the approval. Therefore, since and said teacher is not B. A. but B. Com. she should not be reappointed and explanation may be tendered for misguiding this office. "

(2.) THEREFORE, the services of the first respondent came to be terminated by the management on 24th August, 1999 citing as the reason for termination, the communication of the Education Officer ruling that the first respondent lacked the required qualifications.

(3.) ). The first respondent thereupon, moved the School Tribunal by an appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal, consent terms were filed before the Tribunal and an order in terms thereof came to be passed on 29th September, 1999 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of termination. A further order was passed by the Tribunal on 8th February, 2000, directing the Deputy Director of Education to deduct the amount of arrears from the grant due and payable to the school and pay over the amount to the first respondent. The management thereupon, moved this court and by an order dated 2nd August, 2000, both the orders of the School tribunal were set aside by consent and the Tribunal was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal afresh. In pursuance thereof, the School Tribunal has rendered a judgment on 16th October, 2000 after hearing the parties. The tribunal has come to the conclusion that the first respondent was duly qualified; that as a probationer, she had attained the status of an employee who must be deemed to have been confirmed by virtue of the provisions of section 5 (2) and that the order of termination had not been passed by the competent authority. An order of reinstatement has been passed together with a direction for payment of backwages.