GRAM VIKAS SEVA MANDAL Vs. DEORE RANJANA WANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-management is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 15-4-1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Nashik allowing Appeal No. 26/1993 and thereby directing the reinstatement of the respondent-Teacher on her original post with backwages from the date of termination. While admitting this petition the prayer for stay to the order of reinstatement was declined but on the relief of payment of backwages interim stay was granted on 16-4-1997 and consequently, the respondent No. 1 teacher was reinstated. As per the instructions received by Mr. Mihir Desai, the learned Counsel for respondent-Teacher, she was subsequently declared surplus and absorbed in some other School under Rule 26 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 w.e.f. 20-2-2003.

(2.) Though this petition has been filed by the management, the Head Master who was original respondent No. 4 in the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 and without any reasons. As per the respondent-Teacher she was appointed w.e.f. 13-6-1990 and on 12-6-1991 she was transferred to Chinchol from Sawkarwadi for the academic year 1991-92 and again on 8-6-1992 she was brought back to the Samta Secondary and Higher Secondary School at Sawkarwadi. She alleged that she was issued an order of termination dated 30-4-1993 after having worked for 3 continuous years. She further stated that she was appointed in a clear vacancy and, therefore, the termination order was illegal. The Appeal was filed belatedly and was subsequently allowed to be amended.

(3.) There is one more reason on the basis of which the School Tribunal held that the appellant was in continuous service for 3 academic years and in fact prior to that in the academic year 1990-91 as well and this evidence was experience certificate dated 24-1-1991 issued by the Head Master of Samta Vidyalay at Sawkarwadi, Tal. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik. The said certificate stated that the appellant had worked in that School in the academic years 1989-90, 1990-91 as an Assistant Teacher and from 4-6-1991 she was continued for the academic year 1991-92. This certificate was issued by the management and the School Tribunal got impressed by this. Thus, the appellant had worked from the academic year 1989-90, 1991-92 and in the academic year 1992-93 she claimed to have been appointed against the reserved post (ST) but from the record the School Tribunal noted that the appellant was shown to be a candidate from scheduled tribe and appointed against the open post in the academic year 1992-93. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in recording a finding that the management was not coming out with true facts and was guilty of suppressing the material facts. The management did not bring on record any evidence to show that the appointment of the petitioner was not against the permanent vacancy, she was not a qualified teacher, her appointment was not approved by the Education Officer as and when such approval proposals were submitted by them and, therefore, on these obtaining circumstances the Tribunal was right in holding that the termination was illegal more so when the teacher had worked for four continuous academic years and the roaster produced by the management was not authenticated by the competent authority and the roaster submitted was also not relied.