ANAND MARUTI SHINDE Vs. PATANKRAO DADASAHEB PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition takes exception to the Judgement and order dated 21-10-1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur, thereby dismissing the petitioner s Appeal registered as Appeal No. 195/1993. In the said Appeal the petitioner had raised a grievance of his supercession to the post of Head Master and respondent no.3 was appointed to the said post w.e.f. 1-7-1993.

(2.) There is no dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed w.e.f. 1-7-1988 as an Assistant Teacher and it appears that he was served with a notice of termination dated 13-8-1990 and was terminated. The said termination notice was challenged in Appeal No.1/1990 and it was allowed by the School Tribunal at Mumbai on 9-10-1990 but ex-parte. The Respondents were duly served and the Head Master had appeared before the Tribunal on 10-7-1991 and filed an application for adjournment to engage an Advocate and also to file reply. On two subsequent dates i.e. 29-7-91 and 22-8-91 none appeared for the management and, therefore, the appeal proceeded exparte as per the order passed on 22-8-1991. The Appeal was finally heard on 22-9-1991 and was allowed on 9-10-1992. The petitioner claims that he possessed the qualifications of B.A. B.Ed when he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 1-7-1991 whereas Respondent No. 3 holding the qualifications of M.A. B.Ed. was appointed w.e.f. 11-7-1988 and both of them being Assistant Teachers in category C (in schedule F) he was senior to respondent no.3 and had put in 5 years of service as on 1-7-1993. He, therefore, prayed that he was not only senior to the respondent no.3 but has put in continuous service of 5 years in the Secondary School and respondent no. 3 was short of few days to complete that requirement.

(3.) The management filed reply and brought on record the appointment orders issued to the petitioner as well as the letters of approval for the said appointment. It was pointed out that the initial appointment w.e.f. 1-7-1989 was on temporary basis and only for one academic year. At the end of April 1990 he was discontinued and the said appointment was against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. He was again appointed on 21-6-1990 against the very same reserved post. Approvals granted by the Education Officer were also for temporary period and strictly for the respective academic years. It was also pointed out that he was not given the trained graduate pay scale but he was given pay scale of primary school teacher (D.Ed scale). The management did not point out as to when the petitioner was given the B.Ed scale. However, the School Tribunal noted that between his first appointment and second appointment there was a gap of 90 days and between his termination on 13-8-1990 and reinstatement as per the Judgement of School Tribunal rendered on 9-10-1990 there was almost more than 50 days gap. However, by the School Tribunal he was granted reinstatement with full backwages and, therefore, gap in his service in the year 1990 becomes irrelevant but certainly there was a break in service for 90 days at the end of the academic year 1988-89.