PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION TRUST Vs. RATIS RAFIA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, impugns the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of this High Court on 13.2.2004 in Writ Petition No.3912 of 2000 filed by present Respondent No.1, thereby allowing the same.

(2.) The factual matrix of the litigation can be described as follows.

(3.) On reference to the judgment of the School Tribunal, it seems that the learned Member of the Tribunal has taken a note that the applicants were Assistant Teachers duly qualified and trained. However, it was observed that none of the appellants had filed the appointment orders in support of their contentions that they were serving since six years prior to filing of appeals. Only the copies of approval, which showed that the appointment was approved for academic years 1992-93 and 1993-94, were produced before the Tribunal and, therefore, the learned Member held that this was not sufficient to demonstrate that the appellants were serving with the management, continuously for a period of six years. The submission of the management that services of the appellants were on temporary basis and only for the academic years concerned, is taken a note. However, learned Judge has simply recorded that there is no record to show the appellants having served any time after academic year 1993-94. It must be said that the learned Member of the Tribunal never referred to the crux of the issue. The appellants have claimed deemed permanency, by virtue of Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act. Observing that the services of the appellants came to an end at the end of April 1994, learned Member held that the appeals filed on 8.7.1994 were time barred.