The Education Officer vs Shri Pradeep Yadavrao Deshpande
2009 Latest Caselaw 97 Bom

                                           1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
                             NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR




                                                                                   
                         WRIT PETITION NO.2397 OF 2002
PETITIONER:




                                                           
      The Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal Tq. & Distt.
      Yavatmal.




                                                          
                                         VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1]    Shri Pradeep Yadavrao Deshpande, aged about 37 years, occ: service, r/o at




                                               
      and post Zadgaon, tah. Ralegaon, District : Yavatmal.
2]    Shri Lakhaji Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha, Zadegaon, Tq. Ralegaon, District :
                                
      Yavatmal, through its President.
                               
3]    The Head Master and Secretary School Committee, Shri Lakhaji Maharaj
      Vidyalaya, Zadegaon, Tq. Ralegaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
============================================================
             

Smt. Sharda Wandile, AGP for petitioner
          



Smt. A.A. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.1
============================================================
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.

DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT.

By this petition the petitioner, Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad

Yavatmal impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,

Amravati on 11.12.1996, so far as it holds that the salary of the respondent no.1 for the

duty period shall be held admissible from the government grants.

2] The respondent no.1 had filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer, School

Tribunal, Amravati. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that his services were illegally

terminated by the management by the termination order dated 30.3.1993. The

respondent no.1 was appointed on 15.9.1991 for a period of one academic session till

30.4.1992. Subsequently he was again appointed in the year 1992 for the academic

session 1992-93. According to the respondent no.1 he ought to have been appointed on

probation for a period of 2 years and the management was not justified in terminating

his services by the order dated 30.3.1993. During the pendency of the appeal, by an

interim order, the respondent no.1 was continued in service. The Education Officer was

directed to pay the salary of the respondent no.1. The Education Officer, filed an

application for vacation of stay before the School Tribunal, but the same was not

decided by the School Tribunal and the judgment dated 11.12.1996 was delivered. The

Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 11.12.1996 allowed the appeal filed by the

respondent no.1 and directed the management to reinstate respondent no.1 in service

with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. It was directed by the School

Tribunal that the salary for the duty period shall be held admissible from government

grants. This part of the judgment dated 11.12.1996 is challenged by the Education

Officer by this petition.

3] Mrs. Wandile, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted

that the School Tribunal was not justified in directing the Education Officer to pay the

salary of the respondent no.1 as the appointment of the respondent no.1 was not in

accordance with law. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the post was earmarked for

Scheduled Tribe candidate and since the respondent no.1 belonged to the open category

his appointment could not be approved by the Education Officer. It is submitted on

behalf of the petitioner that as per provisions of section 11(3) of M.E.P.S. Act 1977 the

Tribunal can only make a recommendation to the state government and the Tribunal

cannot direct the state government to pay the salary of the employee. The learned AGP

submitted that the Tribunal did not have any authority to hold that the salary for the duty

period shall be held admissible from the government grants.

4] Mrs. A.A. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the

judgment passed by the School Tribunal on 11.12.1996 and submitted that the Tribunal

was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case to issue necessary directions. It is

submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the Tribunal has ample powers to issue

such directions and the directions issued by the Tribunal are binding on the state

government. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 relied on the judgment

reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 261 to substantiate her submission. The learned counsel for

the respondent no.1 then brought the approval letter to the notice of this court. It is

submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that by communication dated 4.12.1998 the

appointment of the respondent no.1 was approved and the Education Officer had further

approved the payment of salary though the state exchequer in view of the fact that the

backlog had been filled by the management. According to the learned counsel for the

respondent no.1 the judgment was passed by the School tribunal on 11.12.1996 and the

state government was estopped from filing the writ petition in the year 2002 especially

when the services of the respondent no.1 were approved by the communication dated

4.12.1998 and the Education Officer had also approved the payment of salary to the

respondent no1 from the state exchequer.

5] I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the

impugned judgment dated 11.12.1996. It would not be necessary to enter into the merits

of the controversy involved in the matter as to whether the Tribunal was justified in

issuing the directions to the Education Officer or not as the Education Officer has

granted approval to the services of the respondent since year 1992-93 onwards by the

approval letter dated 4.12.1998 and the Education Officer has also granted permission

for payment of regular salary w.e.f. 13.4.1998 through the state ex-checker. This

communication was issued in the year 1998 and probably the Education Officer being

oblivious of the aforesaid fact has filed the writ petition in the year 2002. Even

otherwise, from a perusal of the judgment reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J.261, it appears

that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue direction to the Education Department and the

directions are binding on the state government and the state government expected to

comply with the directions given under section 11(3) of the M.E.P.S. Act 1977. In this

case the management has not challenged the order of reinstatement and hence it is not

necessary to consider the other aspects which are considered by the tribunal while

allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1.

6] In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

SMP.