SAMATA SHIKSHAN SAMITTEE Vs. MADHAV YADAVRAO DHOTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for seeking appropriate reliefs in the matter of termination of the respondent No. 1. The petitioners impugn judgement and order rendered by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, aurangabad, in appeal No. 45/2005 whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 1 was directed to be reinstated on the post of Assistant Teacher in the petitioners school with continuity in service and full back wages alongwith other consequential benefits.

(2.) SHORN of unessentials, the case of the respondent No. 1 is that he is B. A. , B. P. Ed. and B. Ed. And duly qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher. He is member of Scheduled Caste. He was appointed by the petitioners vide order dated 21062001 as Assistant teacher on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. His appointment was on probation for period between 21062001 to 21062003. He was not furnished the appointment order as such when the first appointment was made. He was directed to work in secondary school run by the petitioners under name and style Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vidyalaya, Jalna. He continuously worked as Assistant Teacher in the said school. He was again interviewed on basis of his application and was selected to work further. He was given appointment order dated 01082003 and was directed to work on probation for two years between 01082003 to 31072005. He joined the duty as Assistant Teacher on 01082003 and continued to work satisfactorily. The management and the petitioner lateron published an advertisement dated 21062005 in a daily newspaper lokmat for filling up posts of Assistant Teacher and other nonteaching staff members. He attended the interview at the behest of the petitioners. He was not allowed to sign the muster roll on 16062005 after reopening of the school. He was informed by the Head master of the school that his services were terminated. Consequently, he filed appeal No. 45/2005 in the School tribunal.

(3.) THE petitioners resisted the appeal proceedings mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was not appointed on a clear and vacant post w. e. f. 21062001 to 21062003. They denied that he had worked continuously for period of two (2) years during the first tenure commencing from 21062001. They asserted that the respondent No. 1 was allowed to work as assistant Teacher because he desired to get experience and moreover the school being unaided, it was necessary for the petitioners to save the funds on salary account. They submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed by order dated 01082003 on temporary post for couple of years and for a limited period. They contended that the respondent No. 1 was not terminated as such, but due to completion of the fixed tenure, he no more was entitled to seek continuity of service as Assistant teacher. They submitted that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to claim reinstatement.