Bombay High Court
Secretary M.Phule Shikshan ... vs Tamboli Bhaskar Hari & Others on 22 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2178/1996
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2178 OF 1996
1. The Secretary,
Mahatma Phule Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal,
C/o Swami Vivekananda
High School, Shivaji Nagar,
Nandurbar, Dist. Dhule.
2. The Head Master,
Swami Vivekananda
High School, Shivaji Nagar,
Nandurbar, Dist. Dhule. ig ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Tamboli Bhaskar Hari,
At and post Ranale,
Taluka Nandurbar,
District Dhule.
2. The Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal,
Nasik Region, Nasik. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri S.T.Shelke
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri S.P.Shah
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated : September 22, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner / management is aggrieved by the judgment of
the School Tribunal dated 24.8.1994, by which Appeal No.11 of 1992,
filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act,
WP/2178/1996
1977 ("the MEPS Act" for short), was allowed and the petitioner was
directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post with all
benefits w.e.f.30.4.1990 till he is reinstated.
2. The learned Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated
27.3.1995, admitted the petition and refused interim relief. The
respondent was 40 years old in 1992, and would be 64 years old
today.
3. Shri Shelke,
ig learned Advocate for the petitioner has
strenuously criticized the impugned judgment. He submits that
though the respondent may have worked from 1983 till 30.4.1990, he
was an untrained teacher. He was appointed for one academic year
at a time. The petitioner School was not receiving grants. Trained
teachers were not available despite advertisements being published
by the petitioners. Hence, the respondent was appointed on year to
year basis since he was an untrained teacher.
4. Though the respondent acquired B.Ed. qualification from
Jabalpur, since there was no approval to his appointment, he was
terminated by order dated 30.4.1990, considering the law as it stood
then.
5. He further submits that the impugned judgment dated
WP/2178/1996
24.8.1994 is an ex-parte judgment. The petitioner did not get an
opportunity of hearing. He, therefore, prays that the impugned
judgment be quashed and set aside.
6. Shri Shah, learned Advocate for the respondent / employee has
supported the impugned judgment by contending that since the
respondent was working on year to year basis for seven years and
since he had acquired the B.Ed. qualification subsequent to his
appointment, he was rightly confirmed in employment in the light of
Section 5(2).
7. He further submits that the learned Division Bench of this
Court had considered the submissions of the petitioner and had
refused interim relief. He, therefore, prays for the dismissal of this
petition.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
9. There is no dispute that the respondent had worked for seven
years. There is also no dispute that at the relevant time a trained
teacher was not available. The respondent had acquired the B.Ed.
qualification subsequently.
10. The case of the petitioner was considered by the learned
WP/2178/1996
Division Bench of this Court. Interim relief was specifically refused.
11. Considering the fact that the respondent having worked for
seven years and having acquired the B.Ed. qualification, I do not find
any reason to entertain this petition and more so, considering the
fact that the respondent has attained the age of superannuation four
years ago.
12.
This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
