CHETANLAL JIVANLAL SHAH Vs. MASTER TUTORIAL HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging legality of order dated September 1, 1982 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Bombay. The facts which gave rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner.

(2.) ON June 14, 1973 the petitioner had applied for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent No. 1 School. By letter dated October 8, 1973 the petitioner was informed about his appointment as Assistant Teacher with effect from November 5, 1973. The petitioner was informed on March 28, 1975 that his temporary service stands terminated after one month in accordance with Rule 77 (1) of Secondary School Code. The petitioner was reappointed on June 16, 1975 and the appointment letter recites that the petitioner is allowed to join on condition that his probation period will be extended by one year after the usual probation period i. e. two years, expires. The services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from October 3, 1975 without assigning any reason. The petition was paid salary for a period of one month in lieu of notice and also the vacation salary.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal before the Education Officer as contemplated under the Secondary School Code. The Education Officer rejected the appeal by order dated August 14, 1980. The petitioner claims that the appeal was to be heard by Education Officer, South Division but instead, Education Officer, North Division disposed of the same. The petitioner carried further appeal before the Deputy Director and that appeal filed on October 10, 1980 was transferred to the School Tribunal after the Legislature enacted the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated September 1, 1982 dismissed the appeal and that gave rise to the filing of the present petition. The petition was admitted on June 13, 1983. The petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by order dated July 19, 1989 as the petitioner did not care to serve respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner carried appeal before the Division Bench against the order of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside the order by judgment dated July 27, 1992 on condition that the petitioner will not be entitled to backwages from the date of dismissal of the petition by the learned Single Judge till reinstatement even if the petitioner succeeds in the petition. The fact that the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on September 5, 1988 was not brought to the attention of the Division Bench. In pursuance of the order of the Division Bench, the petition has restored to file and is now placed for hearing.