SUDHAKAR HARI JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is presently working as a lecturer at Mahavir Mahavidyalaya and B.M. Rote Junior College, Kolhapur and he holds the qualifications in M.A. (Sociology), M.A. (History), M.Ed. and M.Phil (Sociology). He was appointed as a lecturer in History on clock hour basis from 18/6/1981 and he came to be appointed as a full time lecturer with effect from 15/6/1985 but in both the subjects i.e. Sociology and History. He was confirmed with effect from 15/6/1987. Respondent no.5 was appointed on 12/9/1990 as a part time lecturer in Sociology and at that time he possesses the qualification of M.A. in Sociology. But at the end of the academic year he was discontinued and was again appointed in the next academic year 1991-92. He was continued in the same way for the academic year 1992-93. As he was not continued in the academic year 1993-94 he had approached the School Tribunal and as per the judgment and order dated 22/11/1995 his appeal was allowed, directing him to be reinstated as a part time teacher. The respondent no.6 was also appointed as a part time teacher in Sociology in June 1993 along with respondent no.5. he also having qualifications of M.A. B.Ed. when he was appointed, where as respondent no.5 had acquired those qualifications in the year 1994. In obedience of the order dated 30/4/1998 passed in Contempt No.42 of 1996 by the School Tribunal, at the instance of the respondent no.5, the management rearranged the teaching work load in as much as the petitioner was teaching History and Sociology subjects, whereas additional work load in teaching of the said subjects was being shared by the respondent nos.5 and 6. As per the directions of the School Tribunal, the respondent nos.3 and 4 verified the teaching work load with the New College at Kolhapur and respondent no.6 came to be accommodated in the said college on full time basis. The work load assigned to respondent no.6 was not sufficient to appoint the respondent no.5 as a full time teacher, as directed by the School Tribunal and, therefore, some teaching hours in Sociology subject which were assigned to the petitioner were withdrawn and added to the work load of respondent no.5 so that he could be appointed on full time basis. The Deputy Director of Education by his letter dated 11/3/1999 had called upon the management to initiate such proposal of redistribution of work so that the part time teachers were made full time and the full time permanent teachers would not become surplus. Such exercise was undertaken and, therefore, respondent nos.1 to 4 issued the order dated 24/3/1999 thereby appointing the respondent no.5 on full time basis as a lecturer in Junior College. This order in no way affects the petitioner and during the last more than 8 years the petitioner has neither been rendered surplus nor his work load in the subject of History has been reduced so as to create a doubt in his mind that he would be rendered surplus. On the other hand, the respondent no.5 has been appointed as a full time lecturer.

(2.) Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is proved to be totally imaginary and the order dated 11/3/1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Education has in no way affected the petitioner adversely during the last more than seven years. The petitioner possesses both the qualifications of M.A. (History) as well as M.A. (Sociology) and he was teaching both the subjects. The management decided to give the petitioner only History subject and increase the work load of respondent no.5 in Sociology subject so that he could be appointed on full time basis. The respondent no.5 did not possess the M.A. degree in History and, therefore, he could not have been assigned the classes in the subject of History. The management issued the order dated 24/3/1999 so as to comply with the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education on 11/3/1999 and no fault could be found in the said order so as to cause interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) Hence, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.