KINI KARYAT SHIKSHAN MANDAL Vs. PRAMOD SATUPPA OULKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners challenge the order of the School Tribunal dated 9.10.1997. By this order, the School Tribunal has declared that the oral termination of service of Respondent No.1, effected from 29.6.1996 was illegal, ineffective and void ab initio. The petitioners were directed to reinstate Respondent No. 1 with continuity of service and backwages.

(2.) The Petitioner No.1 is an educational institution and governs the functioning of the petitioner No.2 school. An advertisement was issued by the petitioners on 16.7.1992 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher. The post was reserved for a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. The advertisement also stipulated that in the event a candidate from this category was not available, a non-backward class candidate would be appointed for a temporary period of a year. Respondent No.1 applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement. According to the Petitioner, no other application was received and hence, they appointed Respondent No.1 to the post on a temporary basis for one year. This appointment order was issued on 18.7.1992. Thereafter, the services of Respondent No.1 came to an end when his tenure was determined on 30.4.1993. The post was again advertised and again no suitable candidates from the ST category were found and Respondent No.1 was appointed on the post temporarily. Approval was granted for the appointment of Respondent No.1 to the post for the academic year 1992-93 since there was no suitable candidate from the ST category. In July 1993, the petitioners advertised the posts of assistant teachers on a clock hour basis. Several candidates including Respondent No.1 were selected. Respondent No.1 was appointed to teach physical education on a clock-hour basis on 12.7.1993. Approval was also accorded by the Deputy Director of Education for the appointment of Respondent No.1 on a clock-hour basis. The tenure of Respondent No.1 came to an end with the academic year 1993-94. Again, the petitioners advertised the post on 6.8.1994 and as before Respondent No.1 was appointed to the post meant for the reserved category. This appointment was also for a temporary period upto 30.4.1995. The necessary approvals were granted by the Education Officer. At the end of the academic year 1994-95, the petitioners advertised once more for one post of Assistant Teacher for the ST category. As before no suitable candidate was available and, therefore, the petitioners decided to appoint Respondent no.1 on 12.6.1995 against the reserved post. For the academic year 1996-97, the petitioner advertised again. Respondent No.1 and several other candidates applied for the post which was reserved for the ST category. Consequent upon the interviews being held a candidate belonging to the Nomadic Tribe was appointed by the Petitioner as he was found suitable. His appointment was on probation for a period of two years. Thus, Respondent No.1 was not appointed to the post as a reserved category candidate who was suitable for the post was available. Aggrieved by the decision of the petitioners not to select him to the post, Respondent No.1 filed an appeal under the MEPS Act being Appeal No.166 of 1996 on 25.7.1996. He claimed that his services had been terminated orally by the petitioners on 29.6.1996.

(3.) The petitioners in their written statement pleaded that the appointment of Respondent No.1 was against a reserved category post; it was for a temporary period and once the tenure came to an end, Respondent No.1 had no right to continue in that post. It was also pleaded that the appeal was barred by limitation. An application for condonation of delay was filed by Respondent No.1 contending that it was being filed as a precautionary measure although there was no delay in preferring an appeal.