BABURAO AMRUTRAO KHAREKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune in Appeal No. 105 of 1988 dated 20th February, 1989. This appeal had been filed against the action of the respondents whereby the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated by an order dated 13th June, 1988. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher with full back wages.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be noticed.

(3.) THE petitioner possesses the qualifications of B. Sc. and B. Ed. Therefore, he was eligible to be appointed on the post of Asstt. Teacher. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in response to an advertisement in a newspaper. He was called for interview and was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by an order dated 27th June, 1985. This appointment was with effect from 1-7-1985 in a school managed by respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, this appointment was against a clear and permanent vacancy. It was, however, mentioned in the order of appointment that the appointment was purely temporary for a period from 1-7-1985 to 30-4-1986. It is further stated that the words temporary and the specific period of one year had no meaning whatsoever because the appointment order did not score out the words "leave/deputation vacancy". In addition to that, the clause of probation for 2 years was also not scored out and therefore in fact this clause of probation was applicable to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 again issued an advertisement dated 20th May, 1986 inviting applications for the post of Asstt. Teacher. This advertisement mentioned a number of posts. A perusal of the advertisement would show that only the post of Headmaster was shown to be reserved. No other post including the post of Asstt. Teacher was shown to be reserved. The petitioner on the basis of this advertisement was continued for the year 1986-87. The advertisement in fact categorically states that preference will be given to (i) S. C. and S. T. candidates, (ii) Kannada and Marathi both language persons (iii) ladies candidates.