SHAILENDRA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. KHANDU BHAGWAN KAWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner institution has challenged the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur, dated 29th April, 1998 in Appeal No. 202 of 1994.

(2.) The respondent No.1 herein instituted the aforesaid proceedings before the Tribunal by way of challenging his termination order dated 5th June, 1994 issued by the petitioner management. The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust and a Society duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said trust runs a School namely Loni Maratha Vidyalaya, Solapur. The first respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 17-10-1992 and in this behalf an appointment order dated 15-10-1992 was issued in his favour. Since the first respondent was over aged at the relevant time, the appointment order was made subject to giving relaxation in age by the Deputy Director of the State. The grievance of the first respondent before the Tribunal was that he was prevented to sign the muster roll from 1st June, 1994. It is his case that he requested the management to give him back Rs. 30,000/- which he had paid by way of donation to the institution at the time of getting his appointment. The first respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal by way of appeal challenging the action of the management in terminating his services. It is his case that the Deputy Director by his letter dated 13th August, 1994 condoned the overage. The appeal filed by the first respondent was resisted by the present petitioner by submitting reply at Exhibit-11. It is the case of the petitioner that the appointment of the first respondent was purely temporary in nature and the post in question was reserved for S.T. Category and even advertisement was also issued in that behalf on 10th October, 1992. According to the management, since no S.T. Candidate was available, the first respondent was appointed by way of stop gap arrangement and on temporary basis. It is also the case of the management that the Administrative Officer, Municipal School Board, Solapur, gave approval to the appointment of the petitioner only upto 31st May, 1994. The allegation made in the appeal memo was denied on behalf of the petitioner management. It is also the case of the management that during the Academic year 1994-95, one division of Fifth Standard was reduced and, therefore, since there was reduction in the number of sanctioned staff, the services of the first respondent was required to be terminated. The Tribunal after considering the record of the case and after considering the arguments of both sides allowed the appeal by setting aside the termination order dated 1st June, 1994 and the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the concerned teacher with full back wages. The Tribunal also further observed that back wages which may be paid to the concerned teacher may be deducted from the grant payable to the institution. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal is impugned at the instance of the petitioner management in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Ajeet Manwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that since the appointment of the first respondent was temporary in nature, the Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal filed by the first respondent. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner was in reserved vacancy and, therefore, he was not entitled to continue on the post in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Deputy Director granted approval only for a limited period and in that view of the matter, even though the management had submitted a proposal to give sanction to the appointment, the management had no option but to discontinue the services of the first respondent. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently since the strength of Fifth Standard was reduced for want of students, the first respondent being a junior most teacher was subjected to termination order. Learned counsel has further submitted that since there is no adequate strength and since few classes have been closed down and even subsequently services of other teachers were also terminated as they were declared surplus, the management was justified in not continuing the services of the first respondent. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Malikarjun Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dist. Solapur, through its President vs. R.V. Rajmane and others, 1993 CTJ 67, to substantiate his say that if the appointment is temporary and was made only because the candidate belonging to the reserved category was not available, the management is justified in terminating such appointment.