SHAIKH JAMALCHAND Vs. MAHARASHTRA SEVA SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 21st March, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5556 of 1999, whereby the decision of the Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur dated 8th September, 1999 in Appeal No. 70 of 1997 has been set aside. The School Tribunal by the said decision had allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation, Act, 1977. The Tribunal accepted the stand of the Appellant that the order impugned in the Appeal resulted in reducing the Appellant from full time teacher to part-time teacher and from part-time teacher to teacher on clock-hour basis. The said order was quashed and set aside being illegal and instead it was ordered that the Appellant be reinstated as full time teacher in Higher Secondary School since 1.4.1994 and that the Appellant would be entitled to get salary as full time teacher from 1st April, 1994 till he is reinstated as a full time teacher.

(2.) The said decision of the School Tribunal was assailed by the Respondent Management before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 5556 of 1999. As aforesaid, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by the Management and in turn was pleased to set aside the decision of the School Tribunal and consequently dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section 9 of the said Act.

(3.) The learned Single Judge in paragraph-2 of the impugned Judgment has set out all the relevant facts which led to the filing of Appeal by the Appellant before the School Tribunal. We do not wish to burden this order by reiterating the same facts, as the same are not disputed. The first question considered by the learned Single Judge was that whether the Appellant who was admittedly not holding the prescribed qualification provided under Rule 6 read with Schedule B(III) of MEPS Rules, at the time of his appointment on probation for a period of two years in academic years 1992-93 and 1993-94, can claim benefit of deemed permanency, in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act The second question considered by the learned Single Judge is: whether the orders appointing and granting approval as a part timer and then on clock hour basis, amounts to reduction in rank And thirdly, whether the Appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 9 before the School Tribunal was maintainable