Castribe Karmachari Sangh, ... vs Appellate Authority For Indul.& ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6558 Bom

                                     1                                        lpa248.06




                                                                          
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                       




                                                  
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                 
     LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.248 OF 2006
                  IN
     WRIT PETITION NO.6197 OF 2005




                                        
     Ku. Neela Tulshiram Lambat,
                             
     Aged about 56 years, 
     Resident of Satona, Post-Warthi,
     Tahsil-Mohadi, District-Bhandara.                     ....       APPELLANT
                            
                          VERSUS
      


     1) The Presiding Officer,
   



         School Tribunal, Nagpur 
         (Chandrapur).

     2) Bahu-uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha,





         Bhandara Bearing Registration
         No.F-932-B through its Secretary.

     3) Modern High School Satona,
         Post Warthi, Tahsil - Mohadi, 





         District - Bhandara, through
         its In-Charge Headmaster, 
         Bhandara.

     4) The Education Officer,
         (Secretary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.            ....       RESPONDENTS


     ______________________________________________________________
     Ms. Akshaya Kshirsagar, Advocate h/f. Shri A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for
                                the appellant,


    ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2016 00:39:26 :::
                                          2                                            lpa248.06




                                                                                  
       Shri R.K. Maheshwari, Advocate h/f. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate




                                                          
                             for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
     ______________________________________________________________
                            




                                                         
                                CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & Z.A. HAQ, JJ.

DATED : 15 DECEMBER, 2015.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER Z.A. HAQ, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Akshaya Kshirsagar, Advocate holding for Shri

A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.K. Maheshwari,

Advocate holding for Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The appellant-employee has challenged the judgment

passed by this Court dismissing her petition and upholding the order

passed by the School Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the

employee and consequently maintaining the order issued by the

management removing her from service.

3. According to the appellant, she was appointed as in-charge

Head Mistress by the order dated 01-08-1985. The copy of the

appointment order placed on the record (Annexure P-1) shows that the

appellant was appointed as Head Mistress with effect from 01-08-1985.

3 lpa248.06

At the time of appointment, the appellant was having the qualifications

of B.A., B.Ed. The appellant claims that her appointment on

01-08-1985 was as an Assistant Teacher and she was made In-charge

Head Mistress and then she was appointed as regular Head Mistress on

26-06-1988. As per the provisions of Rule 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981

(hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1981"), the person appointed as

the head of the secondary school should have five years teaching

experience in a secondary school after graduation, out of which two

years experience shall be after acquiring the training qualifications.

The Tribunal found that even if the contention of the appellant that she

was appointed as Head Mistress on 26-06-1988 is accepted, the

appellant was not having the required eligibility as she was not having

five years teaching experience on 26-06-1988. The learned Single

Judge has concurred with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. We

see no reason to interfere with the findings on this point as the findings

are proper and based on the factual details available on the record.

4. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that

if the claim of the appellant for reinstatement in the post of Head

Mistress was not found acceptable, the Tribunal should have examined

4 lpa248.06

the entitlement of the appellant for reinstatement as an Assistant

Teacher. The appellant claims that she was appointed as an Assistant

Teacher on 01-08-1985 and she was made In-charge Head Mistress and

then she was appointed as regular Head Mistress on 26-06-1988. It is

not the case of the appellant that she was promoted as Head Mistress

on 26-06-1988. If the claim of the appellant that she was appointed

as regular Head Mistress on 26-06-1988 is accepted, it necessarily

means that it was her fresh appointment. Considering these facts and

the prayer made by the appellant in the appeal filed before the School

Tribunal praying for reinstatement in the post of Head Mistress, we are

of the view that the School Tribunal has not committed any error in

negativing the claim of the appellant and dismissing the appeal. The

alternative claim made by the appellant for the post of Assistant

Teacher is not substantiated by her before the Tribunal. The learned

Single Judge has dealt with this aspect and has rightly recorded that

the appellant has not been able to show that in 1988 vacancy of

Assistant Teacher was available in the school. Even before this Court,

the appellant has not been able to show that the vacancy of the

Assistant Teacher was available at the relevant time.

5 lpa248.06

5. We do not find any error in the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances,

the parties to bear their own costs.

                           JUDGE                              JUDGE




                                         
     pma