SANMITRA MANDAL Vs. VIJAY VITHALRAO MARKANDEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Nagpur on 9.11.2001 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and asking the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service as a Headmaster and to give him 30% of arrears of salary from 16.10.1997 till the date of his joining the duties. It appears that this court has issued rule in the matter on 26.9.2002 and also stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 9.11.2001 during the pendency of the writ petition.

(2.) THE respondent no.1 had filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur [Chandrapur] under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act 1977. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that he was working as an Assistant Teacher in Lokmanya Tilak Vidyalaya Chandrapur from July, 1972 to 31.7.1996 before he was appointed as headmaster by the petitioner society. The petitioner had advertised the post of Headmaster in the month of July, 1996. Petitioner no.2 was a School which was newly opened and hence the appointment of the Headmaster in that school was made in pursuance of an advertisement as there was no question of senior most teacher being promoted on the post of Headmaster in a new school. The respondent no.1 was selected by duly constituted selection committee and was appointed as Headmaster by the petitioner no.1 on 27.7.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.2000 3500/ for a period of two years. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that the respondent No.1 refused to accept this appointment order for two years, the petitioner no.1 took back the said order and issued a new order of appointment to the respondent no.1 assuring the respondent that the previous order of appointment would be destroyed. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that the management had, by a resolution dated 11.8.1996 protected the pay scale of respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 served in the school from 1.8.1996 to 16.10.1997 when his services were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work. The respondent no.1 challenged his termination before the School Tribunal.

(3.) SHRI . A. C. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the School Tribunal committed a serious error in holding that the respondent no.1 was appointed on promotion and not on probation as a Headmaster. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.1 could not have been appointed on promotion merely because he had worked as Assistant Science Teacher in Lokmanya Vidyalaya Chandrapur from July, 1972 to 31.7.1996. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there can not be a promotion of a teacher teaching in another school in yet another school run and administrated by another management. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment order and the approval order clearly showed that the respondent no.1 was appointed on probation for a period of two years and was not appointed as headmaster on promotion. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Tribunal committed a serious error in discarding the various communications and documents wherein respondent no.2 had himself referred to his appointment order as being one on probation, on flimsy grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the work and the behaviour of the respondent no.1 was not found satisfactory and hence the management had terminated his service by paying him one month salary.