JIVAN VIKAS SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. SHASHIKANT SHRAVAN CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings arise out of a judgment of the School Tribunal in an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The First petitioner conducts a Post Basic Ashram School at Shigaon. The school was recognized in June, 1990 and was allowed to conduct secondary school classes. Besides the Ashram school at Shigaon, the petitioners conduct a secondary school at Palghar and at Dandi. All the schools are in receipt of grant-in-aid from the Government. The first respondent was an assistant teacher who had completed his B.Sc. in 1988 and his B.Ed. in 1989 and his date of appointment was 18th June, 1990. The management of the school passed a resolution of its managing committee on 4th July, 1993 resolving to appoint him as a Headmaster with effect from 7th July, 1993. On 18th August, 1993 the Project Officer Integrated Tribal Development, granted his approval to the appointment of the first respondent for the academic year 1993-94. For the year 1994-95 the management once again resolved to submit a proposal to the Project Officer for the approval of the first respondent as a Headmaster in a permanent capacity. By a communication of 18th May, 1995 the Project Officer informed the management that insofar as the First respondent was concerned his appointment had been approved only for the year 1993-94. The Project Officer further stated that for 1995-96 a combined seniority list should be prepared of all the secondary schools which were being conducted by the management and on that basis an appointment should be made to the post of Headmaster in the Post Basic Ashram School at Shigaon of the seniormost teacher. On 10th June, 1995 the first respondent was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher from the post of Headmaster. The first respondent challenged the appointment before the School Tribunal. The challenge succeeded and by the order that is impugned in these proceedings the School Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the management to reinstate the first respondent with consequential benefits.

(2.) The order passed by the School Tribunal was stayed when the Petition was admitted, by an order of a Learned Single Judge dated 17th March, 1996.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners it has been urged that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench inSuryakant Sheshrao Panchal v. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati, Bhatkya Jamati Aadarsh Prasarak Mandal,, the Post Basic Ashram School conducted by the petitioners which is an institution conducting secondary school classes falls within the purview of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the rules framed thereunder. Rule 3 provides for the qualifications for appointment as a Head of the secondary school; the requirement being of a graduate possessing a Bachelor s degree in teaching and possessing not less than five years full time teaching experience after graduation in a secondary school, out of which atleast two years shall be after acquiring the Bachelor s Degree in teaching or education. In the present case, it is urged that the first respondent did not meet this qualification and his appointment was approved by the Project Officer only for the year 1993-94. Secondly, it was urged that under Note 5 to Rule 2 of Schedule F to the Rules a combined seniority list was liable to be prepared where the management runs more than one school. The Project Officer had directed the management to prepare a combined seniority list of all the three secondary schools of the petitioners and it is an admitted position that the first respondent was not the seniormost Assistant Teacher. Consequently in the year 1994-95 there was no approval to the appointment of the first respondent. Though as a matter of fact, the management had desired to appoint the first respondent in a permanent capacity, his appointment could not be consistent with the rules both by reason of the fact that he did not fulfil the required experience when he was initially appointed and because he was not the seniormost Assistant Teacher.