SUNITA RAMESH JOSHI Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the School Tribunal dated 4.8.1987 in Appeal No.63 of 1987 on the file of the School Tribunal, Pune. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asstt. Government Pleader. None appeared for respondents no.1 and 2.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in the 1st respondent school in the year 1982-83. It is an admitted case that she was appointed in the year 1982-83 in the vacancy of backward class. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was again appointed in the same category for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85. Again the petitioner was appointed temporarily for the year 1985-86 in leave/deputation vacancy. It appears that the management took the stand that the petitioner's service came to be automatically terminated after the expiry of the academic year 1985-86, particularly with effect from 8.6.1986. THE petitioner challenged the order of the management before the School Tribunal. After hearing both the sides, the School Tribunal held that the petitioner's appointment was in the vacancy of B.C. category for the first three years and her appointment in a leave vacancy for the fourth year and, therefore, her termination was perfectly valid and justified. In view of this finding, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the advertisement for the post of teachers, there was no classification subject-wise and this is bad in law and reliance was placed on a decision of the apex Court in Suresh Chandra Verma v. Chancellor, Nagpur University (AIR 1990 S.C. 2023). That was a case in respect of appointments of teachers in University like professors, readers and lecturers. THEre was a general classification. For instance, under the heading of professors, it was mentioned that three posts are reserved for scheduled castes, three posts for scheduled tribes, etc. Similar classification was made regarding readers and lecturers. THE Supreme Court observed that such a general classification is bad and the classification should have been with reference to subjects which the professors had to teach. THE identification of the reserved category should be with reference to subjects was the ruling of the Supreme Court. In our view, the above decision pertains to appointments of professors, readers and lecturers in colleges where normally appointments are made with reference to subjects. THEre can be a professor in English or a professor of Physics, Mathematics, etc. THEre cannot be a professor without any subject in a University. But in secondary schools, it is common knowledge that teachers are appointed without any subject classification. A Science teacher can be given any Science subjects and an Art teacher can be given any Art subjects for teaching. THEre may be cases where appointments will have to be made for posts of clerks or peons or similar posts where there cannot be any subject-wise classification at all. For such post, the authority will have to notify the number of total posts and the number of reserved posts. It is only in the case of University teachers that it is possible to make subject-wise classification and that is what exactly has been laid down by the apex Court. Hence, the said decision is not helpful to us to decide the point under consideration. THE learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention to a decision of a single Judge of this Court in National Education Soc. High School v. Mrs.Lulomool (1987 (2) Bom.C.R. 521). That was a case where the respondent before the High Court had been appointed temporarily but in a permanent vacancy caused due to the exit of one Mrs.Kochar. No doubt, the appointment letter of the said teacher was for a temporary period. THE High Court noticed that though the letter of appointment shows that it was a temporary appointment, since it was an appointment regarding a permanent vacancy, it should be taken as an appointment on probation in a permanent vacancy and, therefore, after the lapse of two years, the said teacher was entitled to be confirmed. A perusal of that judgement shows that it is based on the peculiar admitted facts and circumstances of that case. It has absolutely no bearing on the point under consideration.