JAGDAMBA EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. RAJENDRA BABURAO GOLHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an education society running Aswani Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bina, tq. Kamptee, dist. Nagpur. The said School is non grant-in-aid school and admittedly provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are applicable to the petitioner-Society as well as its employees. Respondent No. 1 secured degree of B.Com. in the year 1983, B.P.Ed. in the year 1985, B.A. in the year 1986 and B.Ed. in the year 1989. On 28-6-1986, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School of the petitioner for academic year 1986-87. Every year, fresh appointment orders were issued and thus he continued to work as Assistant Teacher till the academic year 1991-92. Respondent No. 1 filed Appeal No. STN 224/92 before the School Tribunal, Nagpur contending that at the time of his appointment as Assistant Teacher, he was holding requisite qualification and he had worked on that post for more than six years continuously without any break. His record was clean and unblemished. On 9-7-1992 when respondent No. 1 returned on the duty, the petitioner and respondent No. 4-Head Master of the School restrained him from joining duty and orally terminated his services. That termination was challenged by him in the said appeal. According to him, as he had completed his service for more than two years continuously, he should be deemed to have been confirmed and his services could not be terminated without following due procedure of law.

(2.) The appeal was contested on behalf of the petitioner-Management. According to the Management, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher purely on temporary basis for the academic year 1986-87 by order dated 28-6-1986. That appointment came to an end with the academic session and, thereafter, appointment orders of the similar nature were issued from time to time and every time services of respondent No. 1 automatically stood terminated by efflux of time as per appointment orders. It was contended that as appointment was purely temporary and not on probation of two years, respondent No. 1 could not claim benefit of permanency or any other benefits under section 5 of the Act. They also denied that on 8-7-1992, respondent No. 1 had returned on duty and was restrained from joining the same. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad-respondent No. 2 did not appear to contest the appeal before the School Tribunal.

(3.) After hearing oral arguments and after going through the documentary evidence led by the parties, the School Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent No. 4-School, run by the petitioner-Management, is recognized as per the Act. Appointment of respondent No. 2 as Assistant Teacher was not approved by the Education Officer. He was holding necessary qualification for being appointed as Assistant Teacher. As there was vacant post of Assistant Teacher, the appointment of respondent No. 1 on the said post should be deemed to be on probation and as he had put in continuous service of six years, his services could not be terminated without following due procedure of law. With this finding, the appeal was allowed. Oral order dated 9-7-1992, terminating services of respondent No. 1, came to be set aside. The Management was directed to reinstate respondent No. 1 to the post of Assistant Teacher and to pay arrears of emoluments from 9-7-1992 till the date of reinstatement within 60 days from the order. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the School Tribunal, the Management has challenged the said order in the present petition.