PRAKASH SHALIKRAM KADU Vs. GANDHI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Dhole, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Hiwase, the learned AGP, for Respondent No.3.

(2.) THE challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 23.06.2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissing Appeal No. STN/15/2002, filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (in short ''the M.E.P.S.Act ''), challenging his dismissal from service by an order dated 14.02.2002. The tribunal has dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of an Assistant Teacher as he was not possessing the training qualification of B.Ed. The tribunal has further held that the petitioner was qualified for being appointed as Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I. In short), but, in fact, he was not appointed as P.T.I. It has been held that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act. The appeal has, therefore, been dismissed.

(3.) EVEN if it is assumed that the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis, it was open for the management to terminate the service by an innocuous and simplicitor order of termination or on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was as a stopgap arrangement, without following the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act or that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post. This has not been done. On the contrary, the order is ex -facie punitive and it casts a stigma on the service career of the petitioner and hence, the School Tribunal ought to have gone into the validity of an inquiry conducted and the findings recorded. There was no occasion for the school tribunal to go into the question as to whether the petitioner was appointed in a clear and permanent vacancy or whether appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act or whether the petitioner was qualified to hold the post or not.