ANNA MANIKRAO PETHE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, on passing his B. A. Examination, Came to be appointed for the first time as an Assistant Teacher on purely temporary b for a period from 1-7-1986 to 30-4-1987 vide appointment order dated 30-6-1987 issued by respondent No. 3, who is the Head Master of Daduji Pethe Vidyalaya, by respondent No. 2, Education Society. At the end of academic year 1966-87, he discontinued and a fresh appointment order dated 30-6-1987 was issued to him again on purely temporary basis for the period from 1-7-1987 to 30-4-1988, i. e. for academic year 1987-88. The services of the petitioner was again discontinued fror 5-1988 at the end of the academic year and for the next academic year 1988-89 was issued a-fresh appointment order dated 30-6-1988 on a purely temporary bi for the period from 1-7-1988 to 30-4-1989. The petitioner was not a trained teac and he was appointed purely on temporary basis against a permanent vacancy. tenporary appointments as mentioned hereinabove, were duly approved by Education Officer and he was not appointed for the academic year 1989-90 and did not raise any grievance in that respect against respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner passed his Bachelor of Physical Education Deg (One Year Degree Course) in the summer of 1990 and Statement of marks issuec the Arnravati University declaring the petitioner having passed the said Bacheto Physical Education Examination in second class has been brought on record. petitioner contends that he was relieved by the authorities of the Physical Educa College on 18-4-1990 and he went to respondent No. 3 School to report for duty 19-4-1990. As he was not allowed to report for duty, the petitioner alleged i termination of service and filed Appeal No. 42/90-A under section 9 of the Mahara tra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, bel the School Tribunal at Aurangabad alongwithan application for stay. The lean Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal by his order dated 23-4-1990 granted ex parte stay to the alleged oral termination and the stay order was confirmed subsequently 3-11991. It is further contended that as respondents No. 2 and 3 did not implement ex parte interim order dated 23-4-1990 passed by the School Tribunal, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 139 of 1990 before this Court and the said Contempt petition came to be disposed of by order dated 24-9-1991 in view of the fact that petitioner was allowed to join the duty by respondents No. 2 and 3 on 21-9-19. Thereafter, it appears that on hearing both the parties, i. e. the petitioner and School Management, the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Amravati was pleased to dismiss the Appeal No. 42 of 1990. A filed by the present petitioner and the interim orders dated 23-4-1990 and 3-9-1991 were vacated by order and judgement dated 25-8-1992. The petitioner has assailed the said judgment and order dated 25-8-1992, rejecting his appeal.

(3.) FEW additional facts which are not disputed between the parties and which are gathered from the record and proceedings called from the School Tribunal also need to be mentioned. For the academic year 1989-90, the respondents tfo. 2and 3, Management and Head Master respectively were called upon by the Education Officer to fill in the post of Assistant Teacher by appointing a trained graduate teacher by following due procedure. The Management accordingly released an advertisement in daily Hindusthan Newspaper in May 1989 and in response to the said advertisement, 29 candidates had applied including the present respondent No. 4. Interviews were conducted on 8-6-1989 and the present respondent No. 4, who is a trained graduate, came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher, Physical Training Instructor (P. T. I.) against the said permanent vacancy on probation for a period of two years by appointment order dated 21-6-1989. Respondent No. 4 joined on 20-7-1989 and he was to complete the probation period on 19-7-1991. The said appointment on probation was duly approved by respondent No. 5 Education Officer and accordingly respondent No. 4 was continued in service by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and he was allowed to complete the probation period also. However, all of a sudden, by order dated 19-9-1991, issued by respondent No. 3, the service of respondent No. 4 came to be terminated with effect from 20-9-1991 solely on the ground that the School Tribunal, Aurangabad granted stay infavour of the present petitioner. Respondent No. 4, aggrieved by the said termination order dated 19-9-1991, approached the School Tribunal and filed Appeal No. 215/91 A under section 9 of the Maharashtr? Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as M. E. P. S. Act for short ).