SANJAY RAMARAO FOLANE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 26.3.2002, partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner and holding that the petitioner is not liable to be reinstated and was entitled to salary from 31.3.1997 till 26.3.2002.The petitioner has challenged the order so far it dismisses the appeal for reinstatement in service.

(2.) The petitioner had filed the appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act 1977. It was the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 8.3.1996 and continued to work till his services were terminated by communication dated 31.3.1997. It was the case of the petitioner that the management was not empowered to terminate the services of the petitioner as there was noncompliance of the provisions of rule 28(1) of the Rules of 1981. The petitioner pleaded that the services of the petitioner could not be have been terminated merely because the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner was subsequently cancelled by the Education Officer.

(3.) The management filed the reply and denied the case of the petitioner. It was the case of the management that the petitioner was not a trained graduate and therefore, the Education Officer had rightly cancelled the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher. The management pleaded that the appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act 1977. It was pleaded that the approval wrongly granted was rightly withdrawn at a subsequent stage and hence the petitioner's services were terminated. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati by the impugned judgment dated 26.3.2002 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The judgment dated 26.3.2002 is impugned in the instant petition.