FRIENDS SOCIAL CIRCLE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties at the stage of admission.

(2.) This writ petition is filed against the order of the School Tribunal by the petitioner Management whereby the management is directed to reinstate respondent No. 2.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows The petitioner runs a school known as Mugal National Urdu Girls School. Respondent No. 2 is H.S.C. D.Ed. and is eligible for being appointed as an assistant teacher to teach the pupils from 5 to 7th standard. Respondent No. 2 came to be appointed as an assistant teacher in the said school. He joined his duties on 30/3/1998. The petitioner was appointed in a clear vacancy for a period of two years on probation. The Education Officer had also given an approval to his appointment. Until the year 1998, there was no dispute with regard to the appointment. One Mohd.Kalim was also serving as an assistant teacher in the petitioner No. 2 school. He possessed qualification of B.A.B.Ed. The Management i.e. the petitioner had terminated the service of said Mohd.Kalim for antiNational activities. The said Mohd.Kalim challenged his termination before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal and had directed his reinstatement. The Management had preferred a writ petition against the said order being writ petition No. 330 of 1996. The High Court had even granted an interim stay to the order passed by the School Tribunal. In order to avoid loss being caused to the students, the management appointed respondent No. 4 Rashida Begum as a teacher in 1993. The said appointment was subject to the decision of the judicial authority and the writ petition filed against reinstatement of Mohd.Kalim. As a result, the Education Officer had granted an approval for a period of one year only to the appointment of respondent No. 4 Rashidabegum. Later, the Management had withdrawn the writ petition No. 330 of 1996 which was preferred against the order of reinstatement of Mohd.Kalim. Thereupon, the petitioner management reinstated said Mohd.Kalim to his former post w.e.f. 27/4/1998. The management had appointed respondent No. 4 and she worked from 2/8/1996 for one year. She filed writ petition bearing No. 2262 of 1999 before the High Court. She claimed continuity in the service and the back wages. Respondent No. 2 contended in his appeal before the school Tribunal further that on 19/3/2001 the petitioner communicated to respondent No. 2 that approval to his appointment has been revoked by the Education Officer and his services are terminated w.e.f. 16/3/2001. Respondent No. 2, therefore, moved the High Court by filing an application in writ petition No. 2226 of 1999. The High Court while disposing of the said civil application observed that it had not directed the Education Officer to cancel the approval and directed to reconsider the case of respondent No. 4 and grant opportunity to respondent No. 2 also. The approval in favour of respondent No. 2 was restored on 17/9/2001. Respondent No. 4 Rashida Begum had moved an application for contempt of court for not paying a salary to her. The management was not in a position to pay the salary and avoid the contempt. Therefore, in order to avoid being punished, it is alleged that the management reinstated respondent No. 4 and terminated the services of respondent No. 2 from 26/9/2005. He was informed that the approval to his appointment was withdrawn by Education Officer. Respondent No. 2 contended in his appeal that his services were wrongly terminated and he should be reinstated in service because he was appointed in a permanent and clear vacancy and after following lawful recruitment process. Further, he contended that his appointment was not made against the post of Mohd.Kalim but it was respondent No. 4 who was appointed against the post of Mohd.Kalim and her services came to an end upon reinstatement of Mohd.Kalim.