GRAM VIKAS SEVA MANDAL Vs. SALUNKE MADHUKAR DAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns the Judgement and order dated 28-4-1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Nashik thereby dismissing Appeal No. 30/1994 filed by the Petitioner challenging the alleged oral termination of service as an Assistant Teacher.

(2.) As per the petitioner he had passed his M.com examination in 1989 and further completed the certificate course of Hindi Shikshak Upadhi Pariksha from the Mumbai Hindi Vidyapeeth and he had claimed that it was equivalent to the B.Ed degree. As per the appointment order dated 8-6-91 he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher from that date for the academic years 1991-92 and 1992-93. He was allowed to sign the muster on 16-6-1993 but thereafter he was prohibited to do so and from 17-6-93 respondent no.5 Shri Suresh Pawar was appointed as an Assistant Teacher for the academic year 1993-94 as a part time teacher and the said tenure had come to an end on 22-2-1994. He further submitted that he was orally terminated from service w.e.f. 6-7-94 and as he had attained the status of deemed permanent teacher, the said oral termination was illegal and,therefore, his Appeal filed under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 (the Act for short) was required to be allowed.

(3.) The management i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed the written statement and opposed the application. It was pointed out at the first instance that the petitioner did not hold the qualifications of B.Ed and,therefore, was not qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. It was further submitted that the appellant s appointment was on purely temporary basis and it had expired by efflux of time at the end of the academic year 1992-93. It was denied that on 16-6-1993 the appellant had signed the muster roll and that from the next day he was stopped from doing so. The management further pointed out that for attaining the status of deemed permanency under Section 5(2) of the Act, the appellant was required to be appointed on probation and by following the regular procedure as envisaged under Section 5(1) of the said Act. The appellant had no claim of reinstatement and his discontinuation and/or non renewal of his appointment did not amount to termination of his service and,therefore, there was no cause of action to file the Appeal. The management also highlighted the issue of delay in filing the appeal.