Bombay High Court
Rajani Bhimrao Wagh vs Santkabir Shikshan Prasarak ... on 18 April, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10769 OF 2015
1. Sant Kabir Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Aurangabad,
Through its President,
Madhav Haribhau Borde,
Age-68 years, Occu-Agriculturist,
R/o Office at Plot No.54,
Banai Nandanvan Colony,
Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad,
2. Savitribai Phule Girls High School,
Bhim Nagar, Bhavsinghpura,
Aurangabad, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad,
Through its Headmistress,
Nirmala W/o Narayan Jadhav,
Age-55 years, Occu-Service, ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Azhar Khan S/o Azizurraheman Khan,
Age-42 years, Occu-At Present Nil,
R/o House No.1-11-3, Jaisinghpura,
Aurangabad,
Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad,
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,
3. Rajani Bhimrao Wagh,
Age-35 years, Occu-Service,
R/o Plot No.54, Nandanwan Colony,
Cantonment, Aurangabad,
Tq. And Dist.Aurangabad ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10797 OF 2015
Rajani Bhimrao Wagh,
Age-35 years, Occu-Service,
R/o Plot No.54, Nandanwan Colony,
khs/April 2016/10769-d
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:45:51 :::
2
Cantonment, Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Sant Kabir Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Aurangabad, Through its President
Office at Plot No.54, Banai Nandanvan Colony,
Aurangabad, Tq. And Dist.Aurangabad,
2. The Headmaster,
Savitribai Phule Girls High School,
Bhim Nagar, Bhavsinghpura,
aurangabad, Tq. Dist.Aurangabad,
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,
4. Azhar Khan S/o Azizurraheman Khan
Age-42 years, Occu-At Present Nil,
R/o House No.1-11-3, Jaisinghpura,
Aurangabad, Tq. And Dist.Aurangabad ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12038 OF 2015
Azhar Khan S/o Azizurraheman Khan,
Age-43 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o House No.1-11-3, Jaisingpur,
Aurangabad, Tq. And Dist.Aurangabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
The Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,
3. Shri Sant Kabir Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Aurangabad,
Through its President,
Office at Plot No.54,
Banai, Nandanwan Colony,
Aurangabad,
khs/April 2016/10769-d
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:45:51 :::
3
4. The Head Master,
Savitribai Phule Girls High School,
Bhim Nagar,
Bhawsingpura, Aurangabad,
5. Rajani Bhimrao Wagh,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o Savitribai Phule Girls High School,
Bhim Nagar, Bhavsingpura,
Aurangabad .. Respondents
Mr.R.N.Dhorde h/f Mr.V.S.Kadam, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.P.M.Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.P.S.Dighe, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mrs.S.S.Raut, AGP for respondent No.2.
ig CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated : April 16/18, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. The first petition is filed by the Educational Institution
(hereinafter referred to as the 'employer/Management'). The second
petition is filed by Mrs.Rajani Bhimrao Wagh, who is respondent No.3
in the first petition (Hereinafter referred to as the 'new employee'). The
third petition has been filed by Mr.Azhar Khan, who is respondent
No.1 in the first petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant
Employee').
khs/April 2016/10769-d
3. These 3 petitions have been filed by the respective litigating
sides challenging the same judgment and order dated 05/08/2015
delivered by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.31/2012. The said
appeal was filed by the Appellant Employee and by the impugned
judgment, his appeal has been allowed and the Management has been
directed to reinstate him in service.
3. Mr.R.N.Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the Management submits as under :-
[a] On 05/05/2000, the Management published an advertisement
in "Dainik Vishwamitra" Aurangabad Edition thereby calling for
applications for appointment of teachers and Shikshan Sevak
(2 posts) which were reserved for the ST and NT category. The
required qualification was B.A.B.Ed.
[b] It is stated that the Appellant Employee was appointed on
10/07/2000 as an "Assistant Teacher" against the ST category.
[c] The tribe certificate became necessary since the post was
reserved for the ST category.
[d] The Appellant Employee claimed to be belonging to the "Tadvi"
tribe which fell in the Scheduled Tribes Category.
[e] The Management was consistently pursuing the Appellant
Employee to submit his tribe certificate so that his proposal
would be forwarded to the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 for obtaining the
Tribe Validity certificate.
khs/April 2016/10769-d
[f] Grievance is that the Appellant Employee continued to dodge
the Management and in effect declined to submit the said
certificate.
[g] Mr.Dhorde, placed his reliance upon the GR dated 18/12/2003
by which any employee appointed against a reserved post for
the tribe mentioned is under a mandate to produce the validity
certificate.
[h] On 05/05/2004, the Head Master informed the concerned
Appellant Employee to submit his tribe certificate so as to
enable the Management to forward the same to the Validation
Committee. He was given a deadline upto 30/05/2004. He has
[i]
received the said letter.
Despite the same, he has failed to submit his tribe validity
certificate.
[j] Mr.Dhorde hastens to add that all other employees, who were
similarly directed, have promptly submitted their certificates
which were forwarded to the appropriate committees and their
claims have been validated. It was only the said Appellant
Employee who continue to dodge the Management.
[k] Mr.Dhorde submits that a letter dated 11/05/2004 bearing
O/W No.431/2004 was addressed to the Research Officer of
the Divisional Caste Claim Validation Committee and the same
letter was handed over to the Appellant Employee to be
submitted to the competent authority. He received the said
letter, but did not forward it to the Tribe Validation Committee
for validation and kept the said letter with himself.
[l] He further submits that from 2005, the Appellant Employee
started remaining unauthorisedly absent and did not report for
duties.
[m] Since he did not turn out for reporting for duties, the
Management presumed that he has abandoned his service.
khs/April 2016/10769-d
[n] He approached the School Tribunal in August 2009. After the
delay was condoned by this Court, his appeal was registered on
27/09/2012. Same has been allowed by the impugned order.
[o] He further submits that the documents at Page Nos. 51 to 57
of the first petition paper book would indicate that the
Management brought to his notice that he was remaining
unauthorizedly absent.
[p] He, therefore, submits that despite the reminders of the
Management about the unauthorized absence, he did not turn
up for duties.
[q] He submits that the Management published another
advertisement dated 06/12/2005 in "Dainik Sakal"
Aurangabad Edition calling for applications for the vacant
position, in the light of the vacancy created by the said
employee owing to his abandonment of service.
[r] Respondent No.3 in the first petition, the new employee, was
then appointed in place of the Appellant Employee on
14/12/2005. Her services were approved by the Education
Officer on 07/08/2008.
[s] Mr.Dhorde, therefore, submits that the new employee has now
been working for almost 10 years. The Appellant Employee
could not have been reinstated in place of the new employee
since she has acquired a permanent approval to her
appointment.
4. Mr.Dhorde, strenuously submits that the Appellant Employee
does not have the right to claim reinstatement since he is the
Architect of his termination. Because of his refusal to submit his tribe
certificate, he could not have continued in service and has himself
abandoned service.
khs/April 2016/10769-d
5. Mr.Dhorde has criticized the impugned judgment severely. He
submits that the Tribunal should have consider the fact that the
Appellant Employee was avoiding submission of his tribe certificate
and approaching Tribe Validity Committee since he did not have a
genuine Tribe certificate. In these circumstances, if the Management
has presumed abandonment, no fault can be found with the
Management and respondent No.3 / new employee cannot be
dislodged from her position. He, therefore, prays that this petition be
allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside.
6. Mr.Dhorde placed his reliance upon the judgment of this Court
in the matter of Shriram Mahadeorao Tandale Vs.Saraswatimata
Vidya Prasarak and others, 2006(2) All MR 93.
7. Mr.Dighe, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the new
employee supports the contentions of the Management. His contention
is that after the Appellant Employee stopped reporting for duties from
May 2005, the new employee was appointed on 14/12/2005 pursuant
to the advertisement dated 06/12/2005. The new employee has
worked diligently and has been granted permanent approval on
07/08/2008. He submits that the Appellant Employee cannot be
reinstated by dislodging the new employee. Even if the Appellant
Employee succeeds, he would not have any right to dislodge the newly
khs/April 2016/10769-d
appointed employee. He, therefore, submits that the petition filed by
the Management be allowed alongwith the petition of the new
employee and the petition of the Appellant Employee be dismissed.
8. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of
Mr.Tatyaba Nivrutti More Vs.Miss Rajashri Bapusaheb Chougule and
others, 2008(2) All MR 145, to support his contention that the newly
appointed employee cannot be terminated from service consequent to
the order of the School Tribunal directing reinstatement of the
terminated employee.
9. Mr.Shinde, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Appellant Employee has strenuously defended the impugned
judgment. He submits that the Management had directed him to
submit his tribe certificate. He had submitted a copy of the said
certificate at the time of joining. The Management issued reminders
to him for submission of tribe validity certificate. He further submits
that the Head Master supplied a copy of the communication dated
11/05/2004 bearing O/W No.431/2004 vide which the Head Master
had addressed the Research Officer of the Divisional Caste/Tribe
Committee by indicating to him that the Management has already
forwarded his tribe claim for validation before the appropriate
committee. He denies that the said document was supplied to him in
khs/April 2016/10769-d
original form so as to forward the said communication to the tribe
validation committee as like a messenger on behalf of the
Management.
10. Mr.Shinde further submits that even in the written statement
filed by the Management before the School Tribunal, it is not the case
of the Management that the covering letter dated 05/05/2004
alongwith the documents was handed over to him with the
instructions that he should forward it to the Tribe Validation
Committee. His signature appearing on the OC is only by way of an
acknowledgment that he received a copy of the said letter. The
Management has made the Appellant Employee believe that his
validation claim was already forwarded to the competent authority. In
the absence of the said stand, the Management now cannot contend
that the Appellant Employee himself did not submit the papers to the
Tribe Validation Committee and hence he is not entitled to be kept in
employment.
11. Mr.Shinde submits that documents at page Nos. 51 to 57 in the
first petition are forged documents. The Management has created the
said documents only to misdirect this Court. None of these
documents bear the signature of the terminated employee so as to
indicate that he has received the copies of the said reminders.
khs/April 2016/10769-d
12. Mr.Shinde vehemently submits that all these documents from
page No.51 to 57 are forged documents and are created by the
Management in a single day only to create a story that the terminated
employee has been unauthorizedly absent. He specifically draws my
attention to two letters so as to expose the Management. He points out
to the letter dated 14/02/2006 especially the outward No.526/A. By
letter dated 07/03/2006, the outward No. is 536 and by letter dated
30/04/2006, the outward No. of the letter is 542/A. He then turns to
a letter dated 26/06/2006 with outward No.541/A and contends that
if the letter dated 26/06/2006 has been issued after 03/04/2006, the
outward number could not have been 541/A and 542/A respectively.
If this position is accepted, it would indicate that these documents
have been created by the Management for self serving purposes.
.........
Date : 18/04/2016
13. He submits that no sooner he was stopped from signing the
muster roll in May 2005, the new employee was appointed on
14/12/2005 purportedly in place of the terminated employee and the
Education Officer has granted approval to the said post. He, therefore,
submits that if the Management alleges abandonment of service, they
were under a mandate to conduct a departmental enquiry in the light
of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sudhakar Chindhu
khs/April 2016/10769-d
Bhadane Vs. Niphad Taluka Education Society and others, 2008(1)
Mh.L.J. 448.
14. Mr.Shinde also places reliance upon the judgment of the
learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sadique Hussain
Sheikh Azim Qureshi Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur and others, 2011(2) Mh.L.J. 87 to contend that
the appointing authority cannot avoid its duty of referring such a tribe
certificate for verification to the Scrutiny Committee.
15. Mr.Shinde relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Dipali
Gundu
Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, 2013 AIR SCW 5330 to
support his contention that back wages deserve to be granted if the
termination is held to be invalid.
16. Mr.Shinde strenuously submits that the reason why the
Management has acted arbitrarily against him is because the
Management was committed in appointing the new employee
Mrs.Rajani, who is the 'daughter in law' of the Chairman of the
Educational Society. The Management, therefore, started chasing the
Appellant Employee to ensure his ouster so as to accommodate the
Chairman's daughter in law. He submits that the Management has
khs/April 2016/10769-d
succeeded in appointing Mrs.Rajani in place of the Appellant
Employee within 6 (six) months of his oral termination. He, therefore,
prays that the terminated employee deserves reinstatement, with
continuity and full back wages.
17. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates as
recorded above.
18.
There is no dispute that the Appellant Employee was a
permanent employee with the management. It is also undisputed that
there is no written order of termination. The defense taken by the
Management before the School Tribunal was that the Appellant
Employee was dodging the Management and was not supplying a copy
of the Caste Certificate so as to be forwarded to the competent
committee for validation. It is also the defense of the management that
the Appellant Employee has abandoned his service and hence the
Management was not required to initiate any steps against him.
19. In the above backdrop, Rule 16(3) of the MEPS Rules, 1981
assumes importance and the same reads as under:-
"16(3) In the case of a permanent employee who, without
sufficient cause, fails to apply for leave within 7 days from the
date of absence, it shall be treated as breach of discipline and he
shall be liable for suitable disciplinary action after due inquiry.
khs/April 2016/10769-d
A permanent employee who is absent from duty +[without leave
continuously for a period exceeding three years], shall be deemed
to have voluntarily abandoned his services.
+ The words "with or without leave continuously for a
period of three years or more" are substituted by
Not.No.PST/1083/194/SE-3-Cell, dated 20-12-1984."
20. It is thus provided in the Rules that when a permanent
employee fails to apply for leave or is absent from duties without leave
continuously for a period exceeding three years, it shall be deemed
that he has voluntarily abandoned his service. Abandonment is based
on a charge of unauthorized absenteeism, which amounts to a breach
of discipline. An employer is empowered to initiate disciplinary action
against a permanent employee, who has been unauthorizedly absent.
21. The Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Novartis India
Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and others [AIR 2008 SC (Suppl) 836] =
(2009)3 SCC 124, while dealing with a case of permanent employee,
having not reported at the place of transfer, concluded that the same
would amount to an unauthorized absenteeism. The Management
had taken a stand that the employee has abandoned employment. The
Honourable Apex Court concluded that abandonment amounts to a
charge of unauthorized absenteeism and hence a disciplinary enquiry
is required in such matters.
khs/April 2016/10769-d
22. In the instant case, the Management, on the one hand, claims
that the Appellant Employee was remaining absent from May 2005
and on the other hand, it has taken a stand that he had abandoned
his employment. There is no dispute that a disciplinary proceeding
has not been conducted against the said employee. As per Rule 16(3)
of the MEPS Rules, the Management may not be required to conduct
disciplinary proceedings if the employee is continuously absent
without leave for three years.
23.
As such, if the Management had taken a stand that the
Appellant Employee had abandoned service, it was mandatorily
required to wait for a period of three years from May 2005 to May
2008. However, the Management proceeded to appoint the daughter
in law of the Institution's Chairman in place of the Appellant
Employee on 14.12.2005, which is in the 7th month from the date from
which the said employee is said to have abstained from duties. In this
backdrop, the defense taken by the Management is that the
Chairman's daughter-in-law was granted permanent approval on
07/08/2008. Considering the effect of Rule 16(3), the Management
could not have made the said appointment of the new employee
(Chairman's daughter-in-law) within three years from the date of the
unauthorized absence of the Appellant Employee.
khs/April 2016/10769-d
24. This Court in the matter of Sudhakar Chindu Bhadane (supra)
has concluded that Rule 16(3) mandates the Management to issue a
show cause notice of hearing to the permanent employee, to consider
whether he does not desire to report for duties. If the said employee
declares that he does not desire to report for duties, the management
would then be in a position to take a decision. It was, therefore, held
by this Court that a notice of hearing ought to have been given to the
concerned employee and was under an obligation to prove that he was
continuously absent for 3 years.
25. There is yet another fallacy in the submissions / stand of the
Management. As the Management has taken a stand that the
Appellant Employee has abandoned service, it has purportedly issued
letters dated 28.6.2005, 4.9.2005, 14.2.2006, 7.3.2006, 30.4.2006,
26.6.2006 and 27.1.2006, by which the said employee is purportedly
directed to explain his unauthorized absence and report for duties.
26. This stand can be tested in the face of two facts. Firstly, that the
Chairman's daughter-in-law was appointed on 14/12/2005. The
Management categorically states that she was appointed in place of
the Appellant Employee. Secondly, none of these documents have
been proved to have been served upon the Appellant Employee. The
Tribunal has, therefore, concluded that these documents have been
khs/April 2016/10769-d
manufactured by the Management.
27. The purported notice dated 30/04/2006 carries the outward
No.542/2008. A subsequent notice purportedly issued on
26/06/2006 carries the outward No.541/2008. This indicates that the
Management must have hurriedly prepared these documents only to
create documentary evidence to support its stand that the said
employee had abandoned employment.
28.
Notwithstanding the falsity in these documents and the
engagement of the Chairman's daughter in law on 14/12/2005, the
Management could not have filled in the post occupied by the
Appellant Employee until the charge of unauthorized absenteeism was
not proved against him resulting in his dismissal or for a period of
three years so as to presume deemed abandonment under Rule 16(3)
of the Rules as is held by this Court in the case of Sudhakar (supra).
29. Inspite of the above, it also cannot be ignored that the Appellant
Employee had preferred his Appeal before the School Tribunal as late
as in 2009. Though the delay of 4 years in the matter has been
condoned by this Court after the Tribunal declined to condone it, it
does create a complication in this matter since the new employee has
been appointed and has obtained permanent approval. She is now in
khs/April 2016/10769-d
employment for more than ten years from 14/12/2005 and despite
the fact situation as above, it would be harsh to dislodge her after
having settled in employment for more than ten years. This situation
has occurred only because the Appellant Employee kept silent for four
years and then approached the School Tribunal in 2009 alleging oral
termination / refusal to offer work from May 2005.
30. The Appellant Employee has taken a stand that he was forcibly
restrained by the Management from signing the muster roll and
performing his duties. This purported act of the Management
assumes significance since it is well settled by now that such manner
of refusal to offer work or restraining an employee from working
amounts to "otherwise termination" and the same is questionable
under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977. Had the Appellant Employee
immediately approached, either the Education Officer or the School
Tribunal after the oral refusal by the Management, the said
Management could have been prevented from filling in the post until
the decision of the Tribunal. The failure on the part of the Appellant
Employee in approaching the School Tribunal for four years has,
therefore, practically crystallized the rights of the newly appointed
employee.
31. It is, in the above backdrop, that the three claims put forth by
khs/April 2016/10769-d
these petitioners i.e. the Management in the first petition, the newly
appointed employee in the second petition and the Appellant
Employee in the third petition, have to be considered by this Court
and in the light of the directions of the School Tribunal.
32. The School Tribunal, below paragraph No.15 of the impugned
judgment has ordered as under:-
"The appeal is allowed as under with costs.
The termination order dated 01/05/2005 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to reinstate the
appellant within 40 days from the date of this order.
It is hereby declare that the appellant is entitled for 30% salary
and back wages from the date of decision of Writ Petition
No.5588/2012 till the date of reinstatement from the respondent
No.1 and 2."
33. The claim of the terminated employee in the third petition is
with regard to full back wages as against the 30% back wages granted
by the Tribunal from the order of this Court dated 02/08/2012 in Writ
Petition No.5588/2012, condoning the delay.
34. The Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Gauri Shankar Vs.
khs/April 2016/10769-d
State of Rajasthan [2015 II CLR 497], has concluded that when the
termination of an employee is held to be illegal and unsustainable, the
hardships suffered by the employee can be reduced by granting 25%
back wages. In the instant case, the Tribunal has granted 30% back
wages from 02/08/2012.
35. In my view, on the one hand the Tribunal has rightly deprived
the terminated employee of the back wages from May 2005 till
02/08/2012, since he could alone be blamed for the delay caused in
voicing his grievance against the Management. On the other hand,
the Tribunal has granted 30% back wages to reduce his hardships.
As such, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said direction of
the Tribunal. Consequentially, Writ Petition No.12038/2015 filed by
the Appellant Employee is dismissed and Rule is discharged.
36. The claim of the newly appointed employee is that she has been
appointed on 14/12/2005 in place of the Appellant Employee. She
has settled in employment, has a family to support and has put in
more than 10 years in employment. Mr.Dighe, learned Advocate for
the newly appointed employee contends that there is no reason to
disturb her since she is not at fault and the Appellant Employee was
sleeping over his alleged cause of action.
khs/April 2016/10769-d
37. Mr.Shinde, learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant
Employee contends that the newly appointed employee could not have
been engaged at least for a period of three years, even if it is presumed
that the Appellant Employee has abandoned his employment.
38. In the light of the observations set out herein above, it is
apparent that by the action of the Management, the Appellant
Employee has been virtually terminated since neither did the
Management conduct disciplinary proceedings for his unauthorized
absence, nor did the Management wait for three years to presume that
the said employee has abandoned the employment. His disengagement
amounts to an illegal termination which has been rightly set aside by
the Tribunal.
39. At the same time, the contention of Mr.Dighe is that the newly
appointed employee is innocent. I am of the view that as her father in
law has orchestrated her appointment, she cannot be punished by
dislodging her after more than ten years of employment in order to
create a place for the Appellant Employee. Moreover, the delay caused
by the Appellant Employee has its own effects and impact on this
proceeding.
40. I am, therefore, of the view that the petition filed by the newly
khs/April 2016/10769-d
appointed employee is on an apprehension that she would have to be
terminated to make space for the appellant / employee. The second
petition No.10797 of 2015 is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent of
issuing a direction to the management not to terminate the services of
the newly appointed employee.
41. In so far as the termination of the appellant / employee from
01/05/2005 is concerned, the same has been rightly quashed and set
aside. He, therefore, deserves to be reinstated in employment
notionally with the 30% back wages granted by the Tribunal to be
paid by the Management from its own coffers considering that the
Chairman has orchestrated the appointment of his daughter-in-law in
his place.
42. Upon reinstatement, the management shall proceed to submit
the proposal of the appellant / employee to the competent Education
Officer for including his name in the list of surplus employees,
provided there is no vacancy with the Management as on date.
Needless to state, if there is any vacancy available with the
Management, it shall accommodate the appellant / employee on the
said post. If the said post is for the reserved tribe, the Management
shall forward the proposal of the Appellant Employee for validation of
his tribe claim and he shall forthwith submit his tribe certificate for
khs/April 2016/10769-d
the said purpose.
43. If due to the absence of vacancy, the Management shall forward
the proposal to the Education Officer and he shall consider the same
favourably in view of the fact that the termination of the employee
dated 02/08/2012 has been quashed and set aside and he has been
granted notional continuity in service. The appellant / employee
shall, therefore, be entitled for absorption in any school after being
entered in the list of surplus employees, which the Education Officer
may so direct.
44. In order to avoid delay, the Management is directed to reinstate the
appellant / employee forthwith and submit his proposal within three
weeks to the Education Officer for declaring him surplus. The Education
Officer shall then decide the said proposal and enlist the appellant /
employee in the list of Surplus Employees in the Teaching Category,
within a period of (6) six weeks thereafter. The second part of the
directions of the School Tribunal, therefore, stands modified in the light
of the above directions.
45. The first petition filed by the management is, therefore, partly
allowed and Rule is made partly absolute accordingly.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
khs/April 2016/10769-d
