SANGITA VIDYADHAR MALTE Vs. BANSODE NITIN ANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 19th September, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, New Mumbai in Appeal No. 68 of 2000 thereby quashing and setting aside the appointment of the respondent no.1 with retrospective effect i.e. from 7th July, 1999 which was issued by memo dated 13th April, 2000 and directing the management to reinstate the respondent no.1 on the same post. The school tribunal also declared that the respondent no.1 shall be entitled for continuity of his services w.e.f. 7th July, 1999 with all consequential benefits, including the salary of his work done from 7th July, 1999 to 24th April, 2000, by recovering the same from the petitioner if paid to her within three months from the date of the said order. The school tribunal directed the Deputy Director of Vocational Training, respondent no.4 herein to consider the proposal of the appointment of the respondent no.1 sent by the management at an early date. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

(2.) The respondent no.2 is a society which runs a junior college at Navi Mumbai. The respondent no.3 is a Principal of the said college. The petitioner was appointed as full time instructor on 1st October, 1995 in M.L.T. (MCVC) in the college run by the respondent no.2 subject to the approval of the Deputy Director, Vocational and Training Education Department. It is the case of the petitioner that the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was granted by the respondent no.4 from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that though the work of the petitioner was satisfactory during the two years probation period, by an order dated 20th April, 1999, the management terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that under misconception that the petitioner had attained superannuation though the petitioner was only 34 years old.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner thereafter made various representations to the management as well as to the respondent no.4 against the said action on the part of the management in terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the alleged superannuation. The management thereafter appointed the respondent no.1 to the said post. The respondent no.4 however did not grant approval to the appointment of the respondent no.1 which was alleged to have been made on 7th July, 1999. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the management, the respondent no.1 herein filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai being Appeal No.68 of 2000 on various grounds inter alia praying for setting aside the said order and for various reliefs. The said appeal filed by the respondent no.1 was resisted by the petitioner herein and also by the management by filing their reply.