VEER ANANDRAO GANPATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the decision of Respondent No. 2 dated 01/02/1989, the decision of the Respondent No. 3 dated 06/10/1987 and 31/01/1989 coupled with the action of Respondent No. 4 placing Petitioner in D. Ed scale from 15/06/1979 to 13/06/1982.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are as under : The Petitioner is M. A. B. Ed. The Respondent No. 4 is a Education Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Respondent No. 4 society runs three Secondary Schools and one Junior College within the local limits of District Sangli. The Respondent No. 4 society published an advertisement in daily Nav Sandesh of Sangli dated 12/06/1979 calling application for appointment of teachers for English subject. Petitioner being qualified as B. A. B. Ed and had offered English as special subject for B. A. submitted his application for the post of trained graduate in response to the advertisement. After completion of formality of interview, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide appointment order dated 14/06/1979. This appointment order was in the scale of Rs. 365-760. The scale of Rs. 365-760 was admittedly prescribed for trained graduate teacher. In response to the order of appointment, the Petitioner joined his duties with effect from 15/06/1979.

(3.) THE Respondent No. 5 is B. A. B. Ed, and his subject is Marathi. The Respondent No. 4 appointed Respondent No. 5 as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 17/07/1979. It is alleged by the Petitioner that Respondent No. 5 was working as an Assistant Teacher in some other institution. Respondent No. 5 left his previous service and joined the institution of Respondent No. 4 at the instance of Shri B. A. Patil, one of the Principal Office bearers of Respondent No. 4 society. Shri B. A. Patil the Principal Office bearer of Respondent No. 4 society accommodated Respondent No. 5 in Jyoti Vidyalaya, Yedenipani, where the Petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher. The Respondent No. 4 was appointed in the scale of Rs. 365-760. Jyoti Vidyalaya receives 100% grant in aid. This being the position the Respondent No. 4 society is under obligation to send proposal of newly appointed teachers to the Respondent No. 3 for his approval. The Respondent No. 3 for his approval and in the said proposal, the Respondent No. 4 had sought approval to the appointment of Petitioner as trained graduate. Respondent No. 3 made scrutiny of the proposal submitted by Respondent No. 4 and accorded his approval to the appointment of Petitioner as trained graduate. This approval was granted by Respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 22/01/1980. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 4 faced difficulties in getting approval to the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as trained graduate teacher because the post on which Petitioner was appointed on 15/06/1979 was the last post of trained graduate available in Jyoti Vidyalaya, Yedenipani. Under the circumstances, the Respondent No. 5 would have been required to work in the S. S. C. D. Ed. scale of Rs. 290-540. The Petitioner easily succumbed to the pressure of Respondent No. 4 simply on the ground that Respondent No. 4 was the employer and was in the position to dominate the Petitioner. On the basis of the consent letter of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 paid him his salary in the scale meant for S. S. C. D. Ed. i. e. , Rs. 290-540. The Petitioner has made a grievance that he received salary only after two years and at that time he came to know that his salary was paid in S. S. C. D. Ed. Scale.