DHIRAJLAL TALAKCHAND SANKALCHAND SHAH Vs. GANPAT SARASWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impuges the Judgment and order dated 21st February, 1991 rendered by the school Tribunal, Bombay thereby allowing Appeal no. GEN/155/bom-58 OF 1990. The School Tribunal was pleased to set aside the alleged oral termination of the appellant-respondent and he was directed to re-instated the plaintiff in his original post and pay him the arrears of emoluments, including pay and allowances from 20th June, 1990 till he is reinstated to his original post. While, admitting this petition, the impugned Judgment and Order was stayed and consequently, the respondent could not be re-instated. The respondent-teacher has filed his affidavit-in-reply and opposed this petition. However, he failed to remain present, when the petition was called out for final hearing. A notice was issued to him which was returned unserved with remark "left". Consequently, liberty was granted to the petitioner-management to publish a notice in the local news paper and accordingly, such notice was published in the daily news paper "navshakti". Proof of publication has been placed on record. Inspite of issuing a notice, the respondent-teacher remained absent.

(2.) Some admitted facts in this petition briefly stated are as under :on or about 22nd February, 1989 an advertisement was published by the petitioner college to fill up the posts of Lecturers in different subjects in the Junior as well as Senior college. Interviews were held. The management could not find a suitable candidate belonging to the reserved category. On or about 21st July, 1989, the respondent approached the petitioner by way of his application in which he pointed out that he possessed the qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in English subject. Consequently, he was appointed with effect from 1st August, 1989 as Lecturer in the Junior college. The said appointment order clearly stated that it was against the reserved category post. On 19th March, 1990 a notice was issued to the respondent-teacher by the petitioner informing him that his tenure would come to an end on and from 20th April, 1990. On 18th April, 1990, the petitioner published fresh advertisement to fill up the posts of Lecturers in various subjects and English was one of them. On the very same day, the respondent submitted his application in response to the said advertisement for the post of Lecturer on full time basis in english subject. The petitioner received only two applications for the post of Lecturer i. e. Mr. Peer mohamed and the respondent.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent that as he did not hear anything further regarding the date of interview, he met the Principal of the 1st College on or about June, 1990 and enquired about the interview dates. He further avers that the principal informed him that there would be no interview for him and he would be continued without undergoing the selection procedure for the new academic year in response to his application. The respondent further states that on opening of the college i. e. on 18th June, 1990 he reported for duty and signed the muster which was kept in the office of the Principal. He also signed the muster on 19th june, 1990 but on the next date i. e. on 20th June, 1990, he did not sign the muster as the Principal informed him that she wanted to discuss with him. He further alleged that when he was participating in the meeting, at that time he was called by the principal and he was asked to leave the college. Thus, his services came to be terminated orally and illegally on 20th June, 1990, as per him.