Shir. Rupdas Chintaman Ghuguskar vs National Education Society, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11641 Bom

                                                    1         202-J-LPA-403-2011.odt

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

                LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.403 OF 2011
                                 IN
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 922 OF 2010

 APPELLANT :                   Shri Rupdas Chintaman Ghugguskar,
                               Aged 40 Years, Occupation - Nil,
                               R/o Kanhalgaon (sonali),
                               Tah - Nagbhid, Dist - Chandrapur.

                               VERSUS

 RESPONDENTS :                 1.    National Education Society
                                     Gangasagar (Heti), Tah - Nagbhid,
                                     Dist - Chandrapur, through its
                                     President, Shri N. B. Barsagade.

                               2.    The Headmaster, Milind Vidyalaya,
                                     Bhuj, Post - Mudza, Tah - Bramhapuri,
                                     Dist - Chandrapur.

                               3.      Education Officer (Sec.),
                                       Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ms. Riya Baghul, Advocate h/f Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for
 appellant.
 Shri M. P. Khajanchi, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
 Ms. S. S. Jachak, AGP for respondent No.3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
                                             G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 24/08/2021

JUDGMENT : (PER : G. A. SANAP, J.)

1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, challenge is to the

Judgment and order dated 21/03/2011 passed by the learned

Single Judge in Writ Petition No.922/2011, whereby the learned

2 202-J-LPA-403-2011.odt

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order

dated 16/09/2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the

School Tribunal, Chandrapur in Appeal No.STC/31/2003.

2. The respondent No.1 - Society administered and

managed the respondent No.2 - School which is recognized

private school. It is the case of the appellant that on 26/06/1995,

he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent No.2 -

School. At that time, he possessed B.Sc. Degree in the subject of

Mathematics. He was appointed in a clear, permanent and

reserved vacancy as per the Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Employees

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

(Hereinafter referred to as "the M.E.P.S. Rules"). The first

appointment order was issued in the year 1996-1997. The fresh

appointment order was issued on 15/06/1997 for a period of two

years namely; 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The appellant

completed his B.Ed. in May, 2003. It is stated that despite an

undertaking that he would be continued after completion of B.Ed.,

his services were discontinued. On these averments, he prayed for

reinstatement and back-wages.

3 202-J-LPA-403-2011.odt

3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposed the claim of

the appellant. It is denied that the appellant was appointed on

probation for two years. The appellant was untrained teacher and

therefore, he was appointed on temporary basis. Vide notice dated

28/04/2000, the services of the appellant came to be terminated.

The appellant was not qualified for being appointed as an

Assistant Teacher. He did not possess the qualification of B.Ed. till

May, 2003.

4. The learned Presiding Officer of the School

Tribunal held that the appellant did not acquire deemed

confirmation. The Presiding Officer further held that the services

of the appellant were legally terminated. The appellant being

dissatisfied with this Judgment and order passed by the learned

Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, preferred the writ

petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 21/03/2011

dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order passed by the

School Tribunal.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment

and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has

filed this Letters Patent Appeal. The main grievance of the

4 202-J-LPA-403-2011.odt

appellant is that he was appointed by following due procedure laid

down under the law and therefore, on completion of two years

service, he became deemed confirmed teacher.

6. We have heard learned advocate for the appellant,

learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.3. Perused

the record and proceedings.

7. The learned advocate submitted that the appellant

was appointed vide order dated 15/06/1997 on probation for two

years. The learned advocate submitted that therefore, the

appellant acquired the status of the deemed confirmed teacher.

The learned advocate submitted that later on, the appellant

obtained B.Ed. qualification. The learned advocate submitted that

the respondents wrongly terminated the services of the appellant.

8. The learned advocate for the respondents

submitted that the appointment of the appellant as an untrained

teacher was temporary on year to year basis. The learned advocate

submitted that the appellant had given an undertaking dated

24/06/2000 and stated that he was appointed on temporary basis

and after completion of his B.Ed., he would not claim any right

5 202-J-LPA-403-2011.odt

over the post of Assistant Teacher. The learned advocate

submitted that the appointment of the appellant, being

unqualified teacher was, on year to year basis. The learned

advocate submitted that the appellant did not possess requisite

qualification to get the status of the deemed confirmed teacher.

9. In order to appreciate the submissions, it would be

necessary to consider the provisions of Rule 6 of the M.E.P.S.

Rules. It reads thus -

"Rule 6 : Qualification of Teachers :- The minimum qualification for the post of teachers and the non- teaching staff in the primary schools, secondary schools, Jr. Colleges of Education, shall be as specified in schedule-B.

Provided that the Education Officer may allow

Management to appoint untrained science graduate teachers for

teaching Mathematics and science subjects or untrained Arts or

Commerce graduates for teaching other subjects in secondary

schools, in exceptional circumstances, such as non-availability of

trained Graduates. Such appointments shall however, be allowed

on year to year basis on the clear understanding that they shall

have to obtain training qualification at their own expenses and

further subject to the condition that their services shall be liable

6 202-J-LPA-403-2011.odt

for termination as soon as trained Graduate teachers become

available."

As per the proviso to Rule 6 of the M.E.P.S. Rules,

an untrained teacher can be appointed in Secondary School.

However, such appointment can be made only on year to year

basis. It would, therefore, be apparent that the untrained teacher

cannot be appointed on probation and cannot attain deemed

confirmation. The appellant as can be seen from the record was

appointed on year to year basis. His appointment for two years,

was not strictly according to the provisions of Rule 6 of the

M.E.P.S. Rules. In the given set of facts, length of service was not

material. It is, therefore, apparent on the face of record that the

services of the appellant were not illegally terminated inasmuch as

the appellant had failed to acquire the training qualification with

the period specified by him, in his undertaking. The appellant

completed his B.Ed. Course in May, 2003. The services of the

appellant were terminated two years prior to May, 2003. It,

therefore, goes without saying that till the date of his termination

and even by the end of Academic Session 2000-2001, he did not

acquire B.Ed. qualification. The learned Single Judge taking note

of the above stated facts, upheld the order passed by the Presiding

7 202-J-LPA-403-2011.odt

Officer of the School Tribunal. On going through the record and

proceedings, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has

not committed any mistake. The view taken by the learned Single

Judge is the only possible view in the matter.

10. The learned advocate for the appellant relied upon

the following four reported decisions:-

i] 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 194 (Ujwal Shikshan Sanstha, Amgaon (Dighori) and another Vrs. Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur) and others.

ii] (2017) 11 Supreme Court Cases 244 (Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar Vrs. Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde and others).

iii] 2016-III-LLJ-700 (Guj) (Mukundbhai Mangaldas Shrimali Vrs. State of Gujarat).

iv] (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 638 (Kankavali Shikshan Sanstha and others Vrs. M. R. Gavali and others).

11. We have minutely perused the law laid down in the

abovesaid decisions. In our view, in view of the finding of fact

recorded by us that the termination of the appellant was not

illegal, the proposition in the decisions relied upon by the learned

8 202-J-LPA-403-2011.odt

advocate for the appellant would not be applicable to the case of

the appellant. In the case at hand, the appointment of the

appellant was on year to year basis because he was untrained

teacher. The law does not confer the benefit of permanency on the

untrained teacher on completion of any number of service. In the

result, there is no substance in the appeal. The appeal deserves to

be dismissed. Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

I] The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. II] In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.

               (G. A. SANAP, J.)               (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)



 Choulwar