MALATI APPU PACHORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - teacher has brought in question the judgment and order dated 6/8/1993 rendered by the School Tribunal, Pune Region at Pune thereby dismissing Appeal No.173 of 1992 which she had filed seeking directions to promote her to the post of Head Mistress of the Girls High School i.e. Kanya Prashala, Kavathe Mahankal run by the present Respondent no.2 - Ambika Shikshan Mandal, Kavathe Mahankal in place of the present respondent no.3.

(2.) Admittedly the petitioner possessed the qualifications of B.A., B.Ed. and for the first time in response to her application dated 29th May 1986 she was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the respondent no.2 with effect from 16/6/1986 as an Assistant Teacher in the Girls High School in the pay-scale of Rs.365-15-500-20-660-Extn 20-760 and the said appointment was on temporary basis upto 15/5/1987. In the next academic year she was issued another appointment order from 15/6/1987 till 14/5/1988 in the same pay-scale. However, in the academic year 1988-89 no temporary or fixed tenure was mentioned and she was informed that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Kanya Prashala in the same pay-scale and she continued. On 1/10/1988 the Girls High School became a fully aided private school and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent no.2 to appoint Head Mistress for the Girls High School in terms of Rule 3(4) of the MEPS Rules, 1981. The respondent no.2, therefore, released an advertisement published in the newspapers on 3/5/1989 inviting the applications for the post of Head Mistress for the Girls High School along with other posts. The petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement and also stated that she fulfilled the requirement of experience of five years of teaching the the Secondary School. There was no response from the respondent no.2 and, therefore, she submitted another application on 31/8/1989 with reference to her earlier application dated 18/7/1989. The respondent no.2 by its letter dated 5/9/1989 informed the petitioner that the present respondent no.3 was holding the post of Head Master from 12/6/1985 and he was confirmed in the same and, therefore, no other teacher could be considered for appointment to the post of Head Mistress. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Deputy Director of Education by her representation dated 13/9/1989 and she did not hear anything further.

(3.) In the year 1992 the respondent no.2 submitted a proposal for seeking approval to the appointment of Respondent no.3 in the post of Head Master to the Education Officer (Secondary) and it was informed that the said appointment could not be approved. Consequently by the order dated 28/3/1992 the respondent no.2 reduced the rank of the respondent no.3 from Head Master to Assistant Teacher and hence the respondent no.3 filed Appeal No. 27 of 1992 under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 ("the Act" for short). The petitioner was not impleaded as one of the respondents in the said appeal but the respondent no.2 was impleaded and it is not known whether any reply was filed opposing the said appeal. Surprisingly the appeal came to be allowed within less than one month i.e. on 27/4/1992 by the School Tribunal. The petitioner approached the School Tribunal in October 1992 and filed Appeal No.173 of 1992 and prayed that she be appointed to the post of Head Mistress and thus challenged the continuation of the respondent no.3 as the Head Master of the Girls High School and she failed by the impugned judgment.