ADARSH VIDYA PRASARAK SANSTHA Vs. SAVITA GAJANAN FATAKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the question of law arising for consideration in all the present writ petitions is common and interconnected, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition of facts, the factual matrix in Writ Petition No.2014 of 2008 is taken as the lead matter for adjudication.

(2.) By way of the present writ petition instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the legality, correctness, and propriety of the Judgment and Order dtd. 14/12/2007 passed by the learned School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai in Appeal Nos. 24 of 2007, 26 of 2007, and 40 of 2007.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition, as set out by the petitioners, are that Respondent No. 1 in each of the writ petitions came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Adarsha Vidyalaya Mandir, a school managed and conducted by Petitioner No. 1, during the year 2005. It is the case of the petitioners that though Respondent No. 1 repeatedly requested issuance of a formal order of appointment, no separate appointment order was issued in her favour. It is further the case that by communication dtd. 27/3/2007, Respondent No. 1 was informed that her services stood discontinued upon conclusion of the academic year. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 was not reappointed for the subsequent academic session of 2007 to 2008. Treating the action of the petitioners in not reappointing her for the said academic year as amounting to an order of termination, respondent No. 1 instituted an appeal in the year 2007 before the School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai, challenging the alleged termination dtd. 27/3/2007. In the said proceedings, the petitioners entered appearance and filed their reply resisting the appeal, inter alia contending that the appointment of respondent No. 1 in Adarsha Vidya Mandir was purely temporary in nature and made only for a limited duration. It was further contended that on the basis of such temporary appointment, respondent No. 1 had acquired no legal right either to claim continuation in service or to seek continuation in the school establishment.