EDUCATION OFFICER Vs. PRADEEP YADAVRAO DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner, Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Yavatmal impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati on 11.12.1996, so far as it holds that the salary of the respondent No. 1 for the duty period shall be held admissible from the Government grants.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 had filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. It was the case of the respondent No. 1 that his services were illegally terminated by the management by the termination order dated 30.3.1993. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on 15.9.1991 for a period of one academic session till 30.4.1992. Subsequently he was again appointed in the year 1992 for the academic session 1992-93. According to the respondent No. 1 he ought to have been appointed on probation for a period of 2 years and the management was not justified in terminating his services by the order dated 30.3.1993. During the pendency of the appeal, by an interim order, the respondent No. 1 was continued in service. The Education Officer was directed to pay the salary of the respondent No.l. The Education Officer, filed an application for vacation of stay before the School Tribunal, but the same was not decided by the School Tribunal and the judgment dated 11.12.1996 was delivered. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 11.12.1996 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the management to reinstate respondent No. 1 in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. It was directed by the School Tribunal that the salary for the duty period shall be held admissible from Government grants. This part of the judgment dated 11.12.1996 is challenged by the Education Officer by this petition.

(3.) Mrs. Wandile, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the School Tribunal was not justified in directing the Education Officer to pay the salary of the respondent No. 1 as the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was not in accordance with law. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the post was earmarked for Scheduled Tribe candidate and since the respondent No. 1 belonged to the open category his appointment could not be approved by the Education Officer. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per provisions of section 11(3) of M.E.P.S. Act 1977 the Tribunal can only make a recommendation to the State Government and the Tribunal cannot direct the State Government to pay the salary of the employee. The learned AGP submitted that the Tribunal did not have any authority to hold that the salary for the duty period shall be held admissible from the Government grants.