DNYAN MATA PRIMARY SCHOOL Vs. MANISHA ASHOK UPARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgement, both these petitions are being disposed of together in as much as identical questions of law and fact are involved therein.

(2.) THE petitioner is an unaided private educational institution which runs a primary school. The petitioner runs two (2) sections of the primary school including primary school at level I and primary school at level II. The primary section at level II consists of classes from 5th to 7th standard. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent Manisha Upare was appointed as an Assistant teacher vide appointment order dated 01061997 by the petitioner. She possesses B. A. B. Ed. Qualification. Her initial appointment was on probation. She was being given consolidated salary. Respondent Raju Shete was appointed on 11081993 as an Assistant Teacher in the primary english medium school of the petitioner. His appointment too was on consolidated pay of Rs. 1000/p. m. He is B. A. B. Ed. (Physical Education ). There is no dispute about the fact that services of respondent Manisha were terminated vide order dated 02082000 and services of respondent raju were terminated vide the same order of the same date on the ground that they were not qualified to work as assistant Teachers. The Management of the petitioner informed them that their services were not required in as much as they were not qualified trained teachers. The education Officer also declined to approve their continuation in the service.

(3.) BOTH the respondents i. e. Manisha and Raju alleged that their continuous service since 1993 onwards could not be abruptly terminated. They contended that they were duly qualified to work as Assistant Teacher in the primary school of the petitioner. They asserted that the termination order was bad in law. They filed separate appeals bearing appeal No. 79/2000 and appeal No. 81/2000 before the School Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal held that both the respondents were illegally terminated by the Management of the petitioner. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal came to the conclusion that both these respondents were eligible to continue on post of Assistant Teacher. Their appeals were accordingly allowed.