Rajesh Pundlikrao Jadhao vs Jagrut Navayuwak Education ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2695 Bom

                                                                                        wp2999.07
                                                   1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                        
                               NAGPUR.

                       WRIT    PETITION     NO.     2999
                                                             OF     20
                                                                      07
                                                                         




                                                                
    Rajesh Pundlikrao Jadhao,
    aged 34 yrs. Occu. Service,




                                                               
    R/o Warud, Distt. Amravati.                                              PETITIONER.


                                                VERSUS




                                                
    1] Jagrut navyuwak Education
                              
    Society, Warud, through its 
    Secretary K. D. Vaidya, R/o 
    Warud, Distt. Amravati. 
                             
    2] Head Master,
    Jagrut Vidyalaya Warud,
    Distt. Amravati. 
      


    3] Education Officer
    (Secondary) Zilla Parishad
   



    Amravati.  

    4] Presiding Officer, School 
    Tribunal, Amravati Division,





    Amravati.                                                                RESPONDENTS.

Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.

3 & 4.

                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   JUNE  09, 2016.

    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the judgment of the School

wp2999.07

Tribunal, Amravati dated 03.10.2006 by which the appeal filed by the

petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short the said Act) has

been dismissed.

2] It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed

temporarily in a leave vacancy vide order dated 05.10.1998. In the said

order it was specifically mentioned that his services would be discontinued

after resumption of Shri P. G. Mundavane. In the next academic session the

petitioner was issued another order dated 21.06.1999 on the same leave

vacancy. According to the appellant he continued to discharge his duties till

his services were otherwise terminated on 23.06.2003.

3] The learned Presiding Officer found that the appointment of the

petitioner was not as per the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act in as

much as there was no advertisement issued before appointing the petitioner.

It further held that the petitioner was not appointed on probation. On that

basis the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

4] Shri R. L. Khapre, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner had worked on the post of Assistant Teacher

since 05.10.1998 for a period of almost 5 years. Two orders of appointment

came to be issued. Though it was stated that the appointment was in leave

vacancy, as the work was available the petitioner could continue in service.

He therefore, submitted that the finding recorded by the School Tribunal that

the petitioner could not be treated to have become permanent was contrary

wp2999.07

to law.

5] There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears

for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

6] With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties I have

perused the impugned order as well as the documents filed on record. The

appointment orders dated 05.10.1998 and 21.06.1999 clearly reveal that the

petitioner was appointed in the leave vacancy due to leave of Shri P. G.

Mundavane. The appointment of the petitioner was not after following the

procedure prescribed by Section 5 of the said Act or the Rules framed under

the said Act. There is no order appointing the petitioner on probation. Mere

continuation of the petitioner on a leave vacancy cannot have the effect of

treating the petitioner to have been appointed on probation so as to have

become permanent in service.

7] In Priyadarshini Education Trust & Ors. Vs. Ratis (Rafia)

Banq Abdul Rasheed & Ors. 2007(6) Bom. C. R. 79 it has been held by the

Division Bench that for claiming benefits of deemed permanency it has to be

shown that the teacher concerned has been duly selected and appointed in

clear vacancy. The School Tribunal after considering all the relevant aspects

of the matter has found that the appointment of the petitioner was not in

accordance with provisions of Section 5 of the said Act. Hence, the judgment

of the School Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse warranting any

interference in writ jurisdiction.

wp2999.07

8] In view of aforesaid no case has been made out to grant any relief

to the petitioner. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

svk