STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Vs. ANITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the order dated 18.10.2002 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 466/2002 filed by the respondent herein whereby the impugned order dated 5.9.2002 terminating the services of the respondent herein from the post of Instructor in the Trade of Embroidery and Needle Work was quashed and set aside. The learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal further directed petitioners to treat case of the respondent like other Instructors for continuation on the post of Instructor in the Trade of Dress Making by taking necessary undertaking as had been taken from others.

(2.) THE respondent herein challenged her termination order dated 5.9.2002 issued by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, thereby terminating her services w.e.f. 7.9.2002 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. According to the respondent she had passed certificate course in Embroidery and Fancy Work in the year 1983 and Tailoring and Cutting in the year 1985. In pursuant to the registration with the Employment Exchange, the respondent herein got interview call from the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training for appointment on the post of Instructor in Embroidery and Needle Work. After interviewing the respondent, she was appointed by an order dated 20.12.1996 as Instructor in Embroidery and Needle Work Trade for a period from 23.12.1996 to 21.6.1997. The respondent herein accordingly joined the post of Instructor and continued working in the Industrial Training Institute where she was posted. In the meanwhile, her services were sought to be replaced by appointing another ad hoc employee and this action of the State came to be challenged by her before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. That original application filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed by directing present petitioners not to replace the respondent herein by another ad hoc employee. That is how the respondent continued to serve as Instructor. Subsequently, petitioners had taken a policy decision to regularize the services of ad hoc employees who were appointed by following selection process, such as recruitment through the Employment Exchange or Selection Board. Accordingly on 30.6.1999, an appointment order, appointing the petitioner as Instructor in Trade Embroidery and Needle work on permanent basis came to be issued. In pursuant to the order dated 30.6.1999, the respondent herein continued to serve as permanent employee of petitioners.

(3.) IT was the case of the respondent herein that she was asked to conduct classes of Dress Making after conversion of the Trade. In the meanwhile, she had also passed the necessary examination and on 6.4.2002 acquired National Trade Certificate in Embroidery and Needle Work. Thereafter, on 5.9.2002, the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training issued termination order dated 5.9.2002, thereby terminating the services of the respondent with a reason that the Embroidery and Needle Work Trade in Industrial Training Institute, Chimur is closed. This order came to be impugned by the respondent herein before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application bearing No. 466/2002 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The respondent challenged her termination on the ground that she was a permanent employee of the State Government and by the Government Resolution dated 3.8.2002, the State has only decided to convert unpopular Trades into popular ones. Respondent Anita Chopde further contended that other Instructors who were working on the unpopular Trades which were converted into popular Trades were duly accommodated by the State by protecting their services but the respondent herein was singled out by terminating her services.