SACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DESHMUKH Vs. VAIDYANATH SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these petitions are the terminated employees of Vaidyanath Shikshan Sanstha. Their appointments were cancelled vide order dated 3.9.2012, by Shri Bhanudas Deshmukh, who claims himself to be the Secretary of Vaidyanath Shikshan Sanstha.

(2.) Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8504/2014 was appointed as a Clerk whereas the petitioners in the remaining four petitions were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks in respondent No.4 School i.e. Vaidyanath Vidyalaya, Parali Vaijnath. The petitioners were appointed on their respective posts vide appointment order dated 13th September, 2010. Their appointments were for a period of three years i.e. from 14.9.2010 to 13.9.2013. The petitioners joined their duties w.e.f. 14.9.2010. The appointments of all these petitioners were approved by the Education Officer ( Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, vide his order dated 23rd of May, 2011. The petitioners were working on their respective posts from 14.9.2010 till 31st of August, 2012. The then Headmaster of respondent no.4 School restrained the petitioners from signing the muster roll w.e.f. 1.9.2012. Subsequently, the written orders dated 3rd of September, 2012 were issued against each of the petitioners whereby the petitioners were communicated that their appointments were cancelled. The petitioners challenged the said orders by filing the appeals under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools ( Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ( hereinafter, referred to as the M.E.P.S.Act ) before the School Tribunal at Aurangabad.

(3.) It was the case of the petitioners before the Tribunal that their appointments were illegally cancelled without following due process of law and in violation of the provisions under the M.E.P.S. Act and the M.E.P.S. Rules. As against it, it was the contention of respondent no.3 that the appointments of the petitioners were rightly cancelled by him since their appointments were made by the former Headmaster, namely, Janardan Gade, in his individual capacity by representing that he was having an authority to make the said appointments since there was a dispute in the management of the trust. It was also contended that the circulars and the letters on the basis of which the appointments were issued by the Headmaster and were approved by the Education Officer were inapplicable to the appointments of the petitioners.