DIPTI MADHUKAR SHETH Vs. BORIVALI EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging otherwise termination with effect from 1/9/2012 orally preventing her from resuming duty in respondent No.2 School and the impugned Judgment and Order dtd. 12/1/2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai passed in Appeal No.16 of 2014.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition, as narrated by the petitioner are that the record shows that from 18/1/2005 the petitioner was working in respondent No. 2 School. According to the petitioner, though she was continuously working, the School deliberately gave her artificial breaks in service. It is her case that she continued to work because the School authorities orally assured her that as soon as a regular post became available, she would be appointed and confirmed as a Shikshan Sevak. Thereafter, on 22/12/2010, respondent No. 2 School published an advertisement in the daily newspaper Times of India inviting applications for the post of Shikshan Sevak. The petitioner submitted her application pursuant to the said advertisement and participated in the selection process.

(3.) On 10/1/2011, after completion of the selection process, the petitioner came to be selected and was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in respondent No. 2 School. According to the petitioner, the appointment was made against a sanctioned post which had become vacant on 3/6/2010 on account of the retirement of one Kusumaben Vasa. However, despite the availability of the sanctioned vacancy, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not discharge their obligation of forwarding a proposal for approval of her appointment. As a result, on 21/1/2012, respondent No. 3 declined to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment.