SAWALE MOTIRAM SHRIDHAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA SEVA SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.10.1999 rendered by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 9 of 2006, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (for short "MEPS Act"), has been dismissed. The petitioner, in the appeal, had challenged his termination order, which was passed on the ground that he was not holding the prescribed qualification. The school tribunal after having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder dismissed the appeal. In paragraphs 17 and 19 the school tribunal observed thus:

(2.) The factual matrix that may be relevant and necessary for deciding this petition is as follows:

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the entire material on record. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, drew my attention to the following documents, namely the undertaking given by respondent No. 2- college dated 6.8.1993 to the institution from where the petitioner did B.Ed and the government resolution dated 6.5.1976, so also to the first proviso to Rule 6 of the MEPS Rules and to contend that it was not open to respondent No. 2 - college to terminate his services on the ground that he was not holding the prescribed qualification. He submitted that an undertaking was given by respondent No. 2 - college stating that they will continue the petitioner till he completes his degree course of B.Ed. He further submitted that in the government resolution dated 6.5.1976 a specific direction was given to all the institutions not to terminate the services of such partially educated teachers, who are otherwise eligible for confirmation on the ground that they did not possess the prescribed qualification contemplated under Rule 6 read with Schedule 'B' of MEPS rules. He submitted that the college has committed grave error of law by terminating the petitioner's services even before he could complete the B.Ed course. He then submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner acquired the prescribed qualification and that he was appointed on probation and on a permanent vacancy, he is entitled for the benefit of deemed permanency under Section 5(2) of MEPS Act. On the other hand Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent - institution vehemently submitted that the petitioner was not possessing the prescribed qualification as contemplated under Section 5 of the MEPS Act read with Rule 6 of Schedule B-III of the MEPS Rules and, therefore, he cannot claim benefit of the deemed permanency under Sub-section (2) of Section 5. He submitted that the petitioner does not comply with basic conditions contemplated under Section 5 of the MEPS Act and, therefore, the order of termination cannot be faulted.