RAMESH NAMDEORAO KHEDKAR, ASSISTANT TEACHER, SHRIRAM VIDYALAYA Vs. SECRETARY, SHRIRAM SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, KHETAN NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati on 21.3.2002 holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 before the Tribunal, was not tenable.

(2.) The petitioner had filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. According to the petitioner he was the senior most Assistant Teacher and was entitled to be promoted as Headmaster. However, in the year 1992, the respondent no.3 was promoted as a regular Headmaster. Respondent no.3 was suspended by order dated 16.3.1996 and one Smt. Nirmala Jani was appointed as Headmistress. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of his supersession before the School tribunal bearing Appeal No.22/1996. However, during the pendency of the appeal, Nirmala Jani was reverted from the post of Headmistress and the petitioner was made Incharge Headmaster. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.3 had filed an appeal against his reversion. On 17.8.1997, the management directed the petitioner to hand over the charge of Headmaster to respondent no.3. On 29.11.1999 on the wrong advise of the management that the respondent succeeded in appeal, the petitioner handed over charge to respondent no.3. It is the case of the petitioner that had he got knowledge on 10.1.2000 about the dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 and after obtaining certified copy of the judgment, he filed the appeal before the School Tribunal on 17.11.2000. The appeal was strongly opposed by the management. The respondent no.3 was also joined as a party to the appeal as respondent no.2. The respondent no.3 seriously opposed the claim of the petitioner and pleaded that the appeal was barred by limitation. It was pleaded that the petitioner had relinquished his claim to the post of Headmaster and in such circumstances, the respondent no.3 had been appointed as Headmaster. The respondent no.3 pleaded that the petitioner had voluntarily handed over the charge of the post of Headmaster to respondent no.3 on relinquishment of the claim and the appeal filed by the petitioner after a period of three years was barred by limitation.

(3.) Without appreciating the pleas raised on behalf of the parties and without considering the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 21.3.2002 held that the appeal was not maintainable. The order dated 21.3.2002 is impugned in the instant petition.