SAMPAT DATTU BHOSALE Vs. SOU ARCHANA CHANDRAKANT SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is challenging the order of the School Tribunal passed in Appeal No.53 of 1995. The petition has been filed by an employee who is directly recruited as Head Master pursuant to an advertisement issued by the institution. Writ Petition No.2142 of 1998 has been filed by the institution contending that the appellant before the School Tribunal did not deserve any relief from the Tribunal.

(2.) THE petitioner worked as an Assistant Teacher from 1.9.1977 to 31.5.1990 in a school run by the Khanapur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. An advertisement was issued on 16.5.1990 in a local newspaper for filling the post of Head Master in the school run by respondent No.3 institution. Interviews were held and although respondent No.1 applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement, she did not appear for the interview. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Head Master from 1.6.1990 on probation for two years. The Education Officer approved this appointment by an order dated 21.2.1995, retrospectively from 1.6.1990. The institution had appointed respondent No.1 as an Assistant Teacher on probation for two years w.e.f. 11.6.1990. Prior to that, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in each year from 1985 to 1989-1990. Thus, the respondent No.1 has worked as an Assistant Teacher for 5 years prior to 1990. However, the appointment was for a limited period of one year on each occasion and the appointment was on a temporary basis. Undisputedly, she was not appointed as a permanent teacher. By an order dated 7.6.1990, she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on probation w.e.f. 11.6.1990.

(3.) THE petitioner continued to work in the school after his appointment in 1990. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal on 24.4.1995 contending that, (i) her seniority was wrongly fixed and that she was in fact senior to another teacher who is respondent No.5 in the petition; (ii) that she was entitled to be appointed to the post of head of the school and that she had been superseded by the petitioner who was an outsider in the school. The appeal was heard and finally disposed of by an order dated 3.4.1998. The Tribunal has held that respondent No.1 was entitled to the post of Head Mistress of the school w.e.f. 24.4.1995 i.e. the date of filing of the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order appointing the petitioner as Head Master. The Tribunal has also declared that the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner as a Head Master was illegal, ineffective and void ab initio. Respondent No.2 i.e. the Education Officer was directed to take steps to recover the salary from respondent Nos.1 and 3 i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein. The institution was directed to pay respondent No.1 the salary in the cadre of Head Master from 24.4.1995.