Bombay High Court
Ansari Ishtiyaq Ahmed Mohd Abdul ... vs The Navapur Education Society, ... on 31 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2050 OF 1996
(Old No.5256 OF 1991 - Bombay)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13121 OF 2014
The Navapur Education Society,
Navapur, District Dhule,
PETITIONER
Through its Chairman
VERSUS
1. Ansari Ishtiyaque Ahmed Aziz Abdul
R/o Plot No.93, Nayapura,
Hakeem Nagar, Malegaon, Dist.Nashik,
2. The Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Dhule,
3. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS
Mr.P.V.Barde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.A.N.Ansari, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms.S.S.Raut, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 31/03/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
17/09/1991 delivered by the School Tribunal, Bombay in Appeal
No.GEN/252/DHL-12 of 1988. By the said judgment, the respondent
was granted reinstatement with continuity and all monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner submits that the respondent was appointed on
11/07/1988 as an "Assistant Teacher" only for one academic year.
khs/March 2016/2050-d
He has endorsed on the appointment order that the conditions set
out therein are acceptable to him and he will join duties on
18/07/1988. As such, on the condition of a temporary appointment
for one academic year, the respondent joined duties.
3. Mr.Barde, learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits
that since the appointment of the respondent/employee was de-hors
the rules, the Education Officer, Dhule listed out the reasons owing
to which approval to the appointment of the respondent was refused.
Based on the said rejection, the petitioner terminated the services of
the employee on 03/12/1988. By an appeal u/s 9 of the MEPS Act,
1977, the respondent/employee challenged his termination and has
succeeded by the impugned judgment.
4. Mr.Barde further submits that the learned Division Bench of
this Court Admitted this writ petition and granted interim relief in
terms of prayer clause "C". Said relief was vacated on 05/03/1992.
The employee was reinstated in service. By order dated 08/04/1994,
the learned Division Bench directed the State Government to
reimburse the petitioner Management in terms of the order of the
School Tribunal impugned herein.
khs/March 2016/2050-d
5. The employee thereafter retired from employment on attaining
the age of superannuation on 31/07/2012.
6. It is pointed out that the employee has preferred a civil
application No.13121/2014 praying for a graduate pay scale from the
academic year 1994 onwards considering that a junior employee
namely Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Mohd.Nazeer was given the graduate pay
scale who had subsequently resigned from service.
7. Mr.Barde, therefore, submits that firstly, the appointment of
the employee was for only one academic year. Having continued in
employment under orders of the Court would not legalize his
appointment. His termination was primarily for the reasons listed
out by the Education Officer which includes an issue of the failure of
the petitioner in following the reservation roaster while appointing
the employee and failure to follow the due procedure of selection.
8. Secondly, the Civil application filed by the employee does not
deserve to be entertained as this petition is filed under Article 227 for
challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal and hence a
disputed question as to whether the employee was entitled for a
graduate pay scale, cannot be entertained by this Court. He submits
khs/March 2016/2050-d
that the contention in the civil application is baseless and the
concerned employee Iqbal Ahmed Ansari was senior to the
respondent. Nevertheless, if the respondent employee addresses his
grievance to the concerned Education Officer having jurisdiction, the
petitioner would face the same and would point out that the claim of
the respondent/employee is baseless.
9.
Mrs.Ansari, learned Advocate for the respondent/employee has
strenuously supported the impugned judgment. She also submits
that the right of the employee for graduate pay scale from 1994 has
not been addressed by any Court and hence this Court may deal with
the said issue. However, if this Court is not inclined to entertain the
said application, the respondent/employee may raise a grievance/
claim, as is set out in the civil application, before the petitioner/
Management as well as the concerned Education Officer.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
11. Considering the fact that this Court vacated the interim relief
of staying the impugned judgment on 05/03/1992 and the employee
having continued in employment till 31/07/2012 when he
superannuated, this petition is rendered of an academic interest.
khs/March 2016/2050-d
The salary paid by the petitioner to the employee has also been
reimbursed by the State Government under orders of this Court.
The petitioner is a grant-in-aid Institution and the salary of the
respondent/employee is, therefore, accounted for through the Salary
grants.
12. In the light of the above, I am not entertaining this petition on
its merits and disposing of the same purely on the ground of
subsequent events and the fact that the respondent/employee has
retired about 4 years ago.
13. In so far as the civil application of the employee is concerned,
disputed questions as regards the purported seniority of the
employee, his qualification and pay scale admissible, cannot be gone
into by this Court. The civil application is, therefore, disposed of with
liberty to the employee to raise the same grievance either before the
Management or the competent Education Officer.
14. In the event such a claim is put forth before the
petitioner/Management, the concerned Education Officer shall deal
with the same on its own merits expeditiously and after considering
the contentions/objections of the petitioner/Management.
khs/March 2016/2050-d
15. Writ petition is, therefore, disposed off. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/March 2016/2050-d
