Nandkishor Shrikrishna ... vs Deputy Director Of Vocational ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6443 Bom

 2208WP462.15-Judgment                                                                          1/5


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                       WRIT PETITION NO.   462  OF   2015


 PETITIONER :-                        Nandkishor   Shrikrishna   Wankhedkar,   Aged
                                      54   years,   Occu-Service,   R/o   3rd  Bus-Stop,
                                      Gopalnagar, Nagpur. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1) Deputy Director of Vocational Education and
                                    Training,   Nagpur   Division,   Civil   Lines,
                                    Nagpur. 
                                 2) New   English   Highschool   &   Jr.   College,
                                    Wardha, Dist.-Wardha, through its Principal.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Mr. P.N. Shende, counsel for the petitioner.
       Mr. P. S. Tembhare, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1.
                              None for the respondent No.2.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    M. G. GIRATKAR
                                                                   ,   JJ.

DATED : 22.08.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction

against the Principal of the New English High School and Junior College

to treat and calculate the service of the petitioner with effect from

15/10/1991 for all purposes and release the notional annual increments

to the petitioner for the period from 1991.

2208WP462.15-Judgment 2/5

2. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher on probation in

Pitale Shastri High School in the year 1991. The petitioner's services

were terminated by the management of Pitale Shastri High School,

which is not joined as a party to this petition, in the year 2001. The

petitioner therefore filed proceedings before the School Tribunal against

Asha Education Society which was running Pitale Shastri High School.

The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and the

respondent-Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training was

asked to absorb the petitioner in some other school and the

management was directed to pay the arrears of salary. Since the

M.C.V.C. course was closed in the school run by Asha Education Society,

the petitioner was absorbed in the respondent No.2-New English High

School and the Junior College by letter dated 11/12/2006. Asha

Education Society was however aggrieved by the order of the tribunal

and therefore it challenged the same in a writ petition bearing No.1495

of 2007. The said writ petition was dismissed. Asha Education Society

challenged the orders of the tribunal and this court in a special leave

petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The special leave petition

filed by Asha Education Society was partly allowed on 09/08/2017 and

Asha Education Society was only directed to pay the salary and other

benefits to the teachers including the petitioner only for the remaining

period of the academic year in which they were terminated. In the

2208WP462.15-Judgment 3/5

backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has sought the continuity

to his services and his pay fixation by calculating his annual increments

from 1991, when he was initially appointed.

3. Shri Shende, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that since the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly

allowed by the tribunal and in pursuance of the directions of the

tribunal, the petitioner was absorbed in the respondent No.2 school in

the year 2007, the services of the petitioner should be reckoned from

15/10/1991 for granting him all the benefits including the pensionary

benefits. It is stated that a direction needs to be issued against the

respondents to grant annual increments to the petitioner for the period

from 1991.

4. Shri Tembhare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent No.1, submitted that the special leave

petition filed by Asha Education Society was partly allowed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court by the judgment dated 09/08/2017 and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the said judgment that the

maximum that could be granted to the teachers, which would include

the petitioner, would be back wages only for the year before the

completion of which their services were terminated. It is stated that it is

2208WP462.15-Judgment 4/5

clearly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para - 4 of the

judgment that the petitioner and the other teachers were not appointed

against permanent vacancies and the vacancies arose only on year to

year basis in the school run by Asha Education Society and few other

schools. It is stated that it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

that the course for which the petitioner and the other teachers were

appointed could not be continued on permanent basis and was

derecognized in the year 2000. It is stated that after the said year, there

was no recognition to the said course and teachers were not appointed.

It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, the relief sought by the

petitioner may not be granted.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that

the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is clearly

observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.4 of the

judgment in the case of the petitioner himself that the appointment of

the petitioner and the other teachers was not made in the school run by

Asha Education Society in permanent vacancies and since the vacancies

arose from year to year till the course was de-recognized in the year

2000, the teachers were continued from year to year. It appears from

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there was no

2208WP462.15-Judgment 5/5

recognition to the M.C.V.C. course in the year 2000 and hence the

petitioner could not have been continued in the said course or in other

course. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he would be

entitled to the annual increments from the date of his appointment in

the year 1991 and would also be entitled to all other benefits including

the pensionary benefits. It is clearly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that the petitioner was not appointed against a permanent

vacancy and was continued from year to year when the course was in

operation till 2000 on experimental basis. The petitioner cannot seek

the annual increments from the year 1991 and he would also not be

entitled to claim any other monetary benefits that would accrue to a

teacher appointed on permanent basis. Since the appointment of the

petitioner was on year to year basis only for six years till the course was

discontinued, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with

no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                        JUDGE                                           JUDGE 


 KHUNTE