BHIKKU MAHAPANTH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONNAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Malode, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Loney, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5.

(2.) The petition is directed against the communication dated 12-7-1995 addressed to the respondent No. 3 by the Deputy Director of Education whereby it was informed that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Head Master made by the respondent No. 3 Management was de hors of the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 (1) (b) , 3 (2) and 3 (5) of the Maharashtra Employees of private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and, therefore, same may be cancelled in view of Rule 3 (6) of the said Rules of 1981.

(3.) Shri Malode, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Head Master was made on 20-9-1990. It is submitted that since there was no other candidate available in the School with the teaching experience mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1981, the respondent-Management appointed the petitioner, who was duly qualified at the relevant time as per qualification mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1981. It is contended that since petitioner was not from the teaching staff of the School, sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 is not attracted and, therefore, appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be inconsistent with the said Rule. It is further contended that similar is the situation so far as sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 is concerned and, therefore, impugned communication is bad in law and cannot be sustained in 4aw.