KU.PADMA Vs. ADARSHA DNYAN PRAKASH SHIKSHANSANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of the order dated 1482013, both these writ petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties by issuing Rule. As common issues arise for determination in both these petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment. Service on respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.1623/2013 is dispensed in view of the order proposed to be passed.

(2.) The challenge in writ petition No.1623/2013 is to the judgment dated 132013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 (for short the Act). In writ petition No.2279/2013, the petitioner who claims to be the President of Adarsha Dnyan Prakash Sanstha has challenged the finding recorded against issue no.3 in aforesaid appeal by the School Tribunal, Nagpur.

(3.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1623/2013 being duly qualified to hold the post of Shikshan Sevak applied pursuant to an advertisement issued on 1422010 by the Head Master, Prakash Vidyalaya, Gumthala. The petitioner on being found suitable was issued order of appointment dated 232010. Said appointment was on the post of Shikshan Sevak for a period of three years. The petitioner s appointment was duly approved by the Education Officer. However, prior to completion of the period of three years, the petitioner s services came to be terminated by order dated 1232012 issued by the President of the respondent No.1 - Sanstha. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 9 of the said Act before the School Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer by impugned judgment dated 132013 held that the petitioner s appointment was made by the Head Master on the basis of Circular dated 19112001 and as under said Circular the appointment could have been made only for a period of one year, the continuation of the petitioner in service after completion of one year was illegal. It was further held that in view of amendment to the provisions of said Act in the year 2007, Circular dated 19112001 would not apply. It was, therefore, held that as the appointment of the petitioner was itself illegal, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. On that basis by judgment dated 132013, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.