JELES EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. R T BHITALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 232 of 1993 has been filed by the Education society which runs the school in which the concerned teacher was employed. Writ Petition No. 10576 of 2004 has been filed by the concerned teacher. For the sake of convenience, the Petitioner in Writ petition No. 232 of 1993 who is Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 10576 of 2004 will be referred to as the "school" and the Respondent in Writ Petition No. 232 of 1993 who is the Petitioner No. 10576 of 2004 will be referred to as the "teacher".

(2.) The teacher was employed in the school from 7. 12. 1987 upto 30. 3. 1988. He belongs to other backward classes. He was appointed in a vacancy which was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category as his appointment was upto the end of the academic year 1987-88. His services came to an end at the end of that academic year on 30. 3. 1988. An appeal was filed by the teacher in the School Tribunal immediately after he was terminated from service. This appeal was decided by an order dated 26. 6. 1992. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the termination notice dated 30. 3. 1988 issued to the teacher by the school was illegal. Accordingly, the School was directed to reinstate the teacher with continuity of service. Full backwages were awarded after adjusting the salary earned by the teacher in other schools during the pendency of the appeal. Writ petition No. 232 of 1993 filed by the school challenges the order of the school Tribunal. While admitting the petition on 5. 3. 1993, backwages were stayed on condition that a lumpsum amount of Rs. 15,000/- was paid by the school to the teacher without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The school was directed to appoint the teacher on a year to year basis again without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the petition. Accordingly, the school reinstated the teacher. He continued to work in the school on an yearly basis.

(3.) On 19. 1. 1995, the teacher applied for leave of 23 days as he had submitted his nomination for being elected to the Maharashtra legislative Assembly from the Rajapur constituency. The school by its letter dated 31. 1. 1995 refused to sanction the leave. It appears that the teacher without awaiting the sanction, proceeded on leave. When he returned, he was not permitted to resume duty by the school. A complaint was lodged by the teacher with the Education Inspector on 14. 2. 1995. On 16. 2. 1995, the teacher's services stood terminated by the school. The teacher was informed by this letter that he had proceeded on leave without sanction thereby causing loss to the students. The assessment of the 4th Unit test and other work was left incomplete by the teacher. The school informed the teacher that his leave application had been rejected and that he should submit his resignation within 10 days of the receipt of the letter. It appears that the teacher did not submit such a resignation and instead lodged a complaint with the Education Officer. On 16. 12. 1995, the teacher was informed that the school had not excused his irresponsible behaviour and it was decided to terminate Page 736 his services with effect from the date of his absence from the school. After the receipt of this letter on 8. 4. 1995, the teacher forwarded his explanation regarding the incomplete work. This explanation was not acceptable to the school. The teacher, therefore, filed appeal No. MUM/15/95 before the School tribunal. By an order dated 7. 5. 2004, the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal observed that under Rule 42 (2) framed under the MEPS Act when a teacher desires to contest an election, previous permission must be sought from the school management. The Tribunal held that the teacher's irresponsible behaviour had resulted in adversely affecting the students as he had not completed the course work nor had he assessed the answersheets in respect of 4th unit test. The Tribunal was of the view that the school had correctly invoked the provisions of Rule 42 (3) by seeking the teacher's resignation. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.