WP 2750/02 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 2750/2002
Ku. Vrunda d/o Yadavrao Deotale,
alias Sau. Vrunda w/o Indrapal Ambilduke,
aged about 32 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Ladikar Layout, Manewada Road,
Nagpur. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Indian Progressive Education Society,
Through its President/Secretary,
Shri M.M. Maske, its Office situated at
Plot No.369, New Nandanvan Layout,
Nagpur.
2. Jai Bharat Vidhyalaya,
through Head Master/Head Mistress,
Bhandewadi, Pardi, Tahsil and
Distt. Nagpur.
3. Ku. Chitra Pandurang Sawarkar,
alias Sau. Chitra Dandekar,
Head Mistress Jai Bharat Vidhyalaya,
Bhandewadi Pardi, Tahsil and Distt.
Nagpur.
4. Education Officer (High School)
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur Tah. and
Distt. Nagpur.
5. School Tribunal, its Office
situated at M.A.T. Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur, Tahsil and
District-Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
Shri K.V. Kuthe, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri S.B. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.4 & 5.
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:03 :::
WP 2750/02 2 Judgment
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J.
th DATE : 8 DECEMBER, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Nagpur on 18.03.2002 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner had filed an appeal under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the School Tribunal, Nagpur challenging the oral termination dated 06.07.1994. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Headmistress since the year 1991 and continued to work as Headmistress till her services were terminated on 06.07.1994. The petitioner pleaded that her services could not have been terminated without following the procedure prescribed by the Act of 1977 and the Rules of 1981 framed thereunder. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal seeking reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages.
3. The respondent-management filed the reply and denied the case of the petitioner. It was pleaded that the petitioner was appointed ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:03 ::: WP 2750/02 3 Judgment temporarily for a period of six months on 26.06.1991 as an untrained teacher as the petitioner was not possessing the B.Ed.
qualification at the relevant time. All the adverse allegations made by the petitioner in the appeal memo were denied by the management.
The management pleaded that the petitioner had given a resignation letter dated 28.01.1994 informing the management that she would not be in a position to work in the school with effect from the next academic session i.e. 1994-95 as she was working as a L.I.C. agent.
The management pleaded that the petitioner had worked in the school only from 02.06.1992 to 21.04.1994 and, thereafter, remained absent. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted according to the management. The management further pleaded that the services of the petitioner automatically came to an end at the end of the academic session on 30.04.1994 in view of the last appointment order by which the petitioner was appointed for the academic session 1993-94. The management sought for the dismissal of the appeal.
4. The Presiding Officer School Tribunal, on an appreciation of the material on record, by the judgment dated 18.03.2002 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:03 :::WP 2750/02 4 Judgment
5. Shri Kuthe, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner by holding that the appointment of the petitioner was on year to year basis and the same was not approved by the Education Officer.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the management had illegally obtained the signatures of the petitioner on some blank papers and the blank paper was used by the management to show that the petitioner had resigned from the job by the letter dated 28.01.1994.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the management had not issued any appointment orders to the petitioner, the management cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong and the judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside in the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in 2009(5) Mh.L.J. 300 (Gajanan Uddhaorao Garole versus State of Maharashtra & others), 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 69 (New Education Institute, Nasik & others versus Mahejabin Ashfak Ahmad Shaikh & others) and 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 563 (Hindi Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai & others versus Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai & others）to substantiate his submissions.
6. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, supported the judgment passed by the Tribunal on ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:03 ::: WP 2750/02 5 Judgment 18.03.2002. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the case of the petitioner by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1997(5) SCC 152 (Hindusthan Education Society & another Versus Sk.Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi & others) as in the instant case also, the petitioner was appointed on year to year basis and her last appointment for the academic session 1993-94 came to an end due to the expiry of term on 30.04.1994. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 then submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned from the job as she was a L.I.C. agent and there was ample evidence on record to show that she was working as a L.I.C. agent since the year 1989.
The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issues involved in the appeal are pure findings of facts, based on a proper appreciation of material on record and, hence, they need not be interfered with, in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
7. Shri Ahirkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5, supported the judgment passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur on 18.03.2002 and sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:03 :::WP 2750/02 6 Judgment
8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2002.
From a perusal of the same, it appears that the School Tribunal did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
The Tribunal found that the petitioner had submitted the resignation letter dated 28.01.1994 and the denial of a signature on the letter dated 28.01.1994 was an after thought as the petitioner had raised this objection only at the time of hearing of the appeal. It is also necessary to note that though the petitioner had denied the signature on the resignation letter dated 28.01.1994, she had raised a plea in the amended appeal memo that her signatures were taken by the management on some blank papers and those blank papers were misused by the management.
The pleas raised by the petitioner about absence of signatures on the letter dated 28.01.1994 and the obtaining of signatures by the management on blank papers appear to be contradictory. Even otherwise, the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had tendered her resignation on 28.01.1994 and the management had accepted the same.
9. Even if we assume that the petitioner had not tendered the resignation on 28.01.1994 and the said letter was not a valid resignation letter, still, in the instant case, it is necessary to note that the appointment ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:03 ::: WP 2750/02 7 Judgment orders of the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 which were produced by the management on record clearly show that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher for those two academic sessions on year to year basis. The services of the petitioner automatically came to an end on the expiry of the term in the year 1994 i.e. on 30.04.1994. The Tribunal has considered the appointment orders to hold that the appointment orders were issued on year to year basis and the appointment of the petitioner came to an end due to expiry of term on 30.04.1994. In such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly relied on the decision reported in 1997(5) SCC 152 in the case of Hindusthan Education Society & another Versus Sk.Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi & others to hold that the appointment for a specific period was not of a permanent nature and the services were liable to be terminated on the expiry of the term. It is also necessary to note that in the first year i.e. in the year 1991, the petitioner was not even qualified to hold the post of Headmistress or for that matter, even the post of the Assistant Teacher, as she was an untrained teacher at the relevant time. In such circumstances, the Tribunal did not commit any error whatsoever in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner by recording the findings of facts against the petitioner on the aforesaid issues. The findings are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. They cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgments reported in ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:03 ::: WP 2750/02 8 Judgment 2009(5) Mh.L.J. 300 (Gajanan Uddhaorao Garole versus State of Maharashtra & others), 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 69 (New Education Institute, Nasik & others versus Mahejabin Ashfak Ahmad Shaikh & others) and 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 563 (Hindi Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai & others versus Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai & others）and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.
10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE APTE ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:03 :::