JAN SEVA MANDAL MANIVALI Vs. SADASHIV HARI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the Judgment and Order dated 16/9/1995 rendered by the School Tribunal, Nasik Region, Nasik whereby Appeal No. 58 of 1993 came to be allowed and the petitioner-management has been directed to reinstate the respondent no.1-appellant in his original post and to pay the difference of emoluments, including pay and allowances, from the date of termination till he is reinstated. The termination notice dated 30/4/1993 was quashed and set aside. The petition was admitted and stay to the impugned order was granted by this court and consequently, the respondent-appellant could not be reinstated.

(2.) The appellant before the School Tribunal, while challenging the order of termination dated 30/4/1993, in his appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 (the Act for short) had claimed that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 18/12/1987 till the end of the academic year 1987-88. In the next academic year 1988-89 he was again appointed from 23/6/1988 and as per the notice dated 27/3/1989 he was informed that his tenure came to an end at the end of the academic year. In similar fashion he was continued in the academic year 1989-90 and till the academic year 1992-93 and, therefore, he had attained the status of a deemed permanent Assistant Teacher under Section 5(2) of the Act. Consequently, he could not have been terminated as per the notice dated 30/4/1993 and the said order being illegal, he was required to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, including backwages and continuity of service.

(3.) The respondent-management filed Written Statement and opposed the appeal both on the points of merit and non-joinder of the Education Officer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Thane as well as the Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region. On merits it was contended that he was not continuously appointed as claimed by the appellant from the academic years 1987-88 till the academic year 1992-93 and it was pointed out that his appointment was only on temporary basis in every academic year and as a reserved category candidate was not available, he was issued an appointment order on temporary basis. The post against which he was appointed was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. It was further pointed out that the appellant was not belonging to Scheduled Tribe, he could not be continued and reappointed in the academic year 1993-94. In short, it was the contention of the management that there was no termination of appellant s services and his service had come to an end by efflux of time and thus there was no cause of action to file the appeal, more so when the appellant himself was aware that his appointment was for each academic year on temporary basis.