CHHATRAPATI SHAHU EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. RAMKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE School Management prefers this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order of the School Tribunal directing reinstatement of respondent no.1 teacher.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows Respondent no.1, who is a teacher, claims that he is M.Com. and B.Ed. He claims that he was appointed on 24/6/1989 on probation for a period of two years. His services, however, were terminated by order dated 6/4/1990, at the end of Academic Sessions 1989 90. The Services were terminated on the ground that the said post was reserved for candidate from Scheduled Tribe category. He was again appointed in the year 1990. His services were once again terminated in the year 1991 on the same ground. Subsequently, he was appointed for another two years and he continuously worked up to year 1992 93. Respondent no.1, therefore, challenged his termination dated 31/3/1993 before the School Tribunal. According to him, he holds, necessary qualifications. He was appointed in a clear vacancy and on probation and therefore, his services could not be terminated. It is also contended that his services were initially terminated on the ground that the post was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. When the services were terminated on the fourth occasion, a new ground was invented saying that he was not qualified to teach the subject for which requirement was there. It was also informed that the Education Officer has not given approval to his appointment. Thus, according to respondent no.1, his services were wrongly terminated and he was entitled to reinstatement.

(3.) THE School Tribunal found that the termination was illegal and therefore, directed reinstatement.