RAMCHANDRA MAHADEO JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of. India has challenged the order dated 21st November, 1988 passed by Respondent No.2 wherein his claim for appointment on the post Teacher in the Respondent No.3 institution has been rejected.

(2.) IT is the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in the Respondent No.3 institution on 10th June, 1974. This institution was given the permission to start a Junior College with effect from 22nd July, 1985. At that time only one division each of the 11th Standard in Arts and Commerce was permitted. Thus the workload of the said institution was not sufficient to appoint a full time Teacher. Therefore, only a part-time teacher was appointed for the 11th Standard. In the Sessions 1986-87 permission was also granted to start one division each in Arts and Commerce for the 12th Standard. Respondent No.4 came to be appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in the Respondent No. 3 institution on 14th June, 1986. He had also applied for the post of Teacher in the Junior College, in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Respondent No. 3 on 1st June, 1986. Respondent No. 4 was appointed on the post of teacher on 2nd July, 1986. This appointment was only for one year since the same had not been approved by Respondent No. 2. The post of teacher in the Junior College was again advertised on 15th May, 1987. The last date of application was 25th May, 1987. Respondent No. 4 again applied and came to be selected for appoint-ment. He was actually appointed on 1st August, 1987 Respondent No.4 did not have M.A. Second Class on 25th May, 1987. He had, however, appeared in the examination and his result was declared on 26th July, 1987. Thus on the date when he was appointed on 1st August, 1987 respondent No.4 was fully qualified to be appointed on the post of Teacher.

(3.) ON 25th October, 1987 the Respondent No.3 passed a Resolution to the effect that the petitioner should be given upgradation in Junior College from the next academic year 1988-89. This was done in view of the fact that the period of six months of the current academic year was already Over. However, no action was taken in pursuance of this Resolution also. On 27th December, 1987 respondent No.2 sent a letter to Respondent No.3 regarding the staff approval for the year 1987-88. In this letter it is mentioned that appointment of Respondent No.4 is approved as full time teacher in the Junior College in the running scale of 600-1000 for this academic year only. This approval was also granted subject to the condition that respondent No.3 would appoint the petitioner as Junior College teacher from the academic year 1988-89. However, in pursuance of this letter, no action was also taken and respondent No.4 continued to work on the post of teacher in the Junior College. The petitioner made other representations also complaining that no actions has been taken to implement either the Resolution dated 25th October, 1987 or letter of respondent No.2 dated 27th December, 1987. Ultimately on 12th August, 1988 the petitioner asked for a copy of the Resolution passed by the Respondent No.3. He did not make any grievance against respondent No.4 nor did he claim that he was entitled to be upgraded on the post of teacher. On 21st August, 1988 the petitioner again sent a representation to respondent No.2 wherein for the first time he claimed that he should be appointed as teacher in the Junior College on the basis of seniority. He also referred to some assurance which was given by respondent No.2 to the Teachers' Associating Meeting to the effect that the management would be informed about giving the appointment to the petitioner from the next academic year. Various representations were also discussed in a representation by the Divisional Secondary Teachers Association on 20th September, 1988. It was mentioned that although the petitioner is eligible and senior his appointment to the Junior College is not being made. Ultimately Respondent No.2 directed an enquiry to be conducted into the various complaints made by the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted a detailed representation to the enquiry officer on 26th October, 1988. In this representation he reiterated what has been stated above.