Ku.Vrunda D/O Yadavrao Deotale vs Indian Progressive Edn.So.Nag. & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 30 Bom

    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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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