JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:--In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune in Appeal No. 105 of 1988 dated 20th February, 1989. This appeal had been filed against the action of the respondents whereby the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated by an order dated 13th June, 1988. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher with full back wages.

2.Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be noticed.

3.The petitioner possesses the qualifications of B.Sc. and B.Ed. Therefore, he was eligible to be appointed on the post of Asstt. Teacher. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in response to an advertisement in a newspaper. He was called for interview and was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by an order dated 27th June, 1985. This appointment was with effect from 1-7-1985 in a school managed by respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, this appointment was against a clear and permanent vacancy. It was, however, mentioned in the order of appointment that the appointment was purely temporary for a period from 1-7-1985 to 30-4-1986. It is further stated that the words temporary and the specific period of one year had no meaning whatsoever because the appointment order did not score out the words "leave/deputation vacancy". In addition to that, the clause of probation for 2 years was also not scored out and therefore in fact this clause of probation was applicable to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 again issued an advertisement dated 20th May, 1986 inviting applications for the post of Asstt. Teacher. This advertisement mentioned a number of posts. A perusal of the advertisement would show that only the post of Headmaster was shown to be reserved. No other post including the post of Asstt. Teacher was shown to be reserved. The petitioner on the basis of this advertisement was continued for the year 1986-87. The advertisement in fact categorically states that preference will be given to (i) S.C. and S.T. candidates, (ii) Kannada and Marathi both language persons (iii) ladies candidates.

4.By an order dated 30th June, 1986 respondent No. 2 continued the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1st July, 1986. This order of appointment is identical to the earlier order of appointment dated 27th June, 1985. The petitioner, therefore, resumed his service on 2nd July, 1986. The petitioner was not asked to make any further application nor was he interviewed. He continued to receive his salary and allowances till 14th June, 1987, though the order of appointment dated 30th June, 1986 mentioned the appointment of the petitioner for one year. On re-opening of the school in July, 1987 the petitioner went to the school. However, he was not allowed to join his duties and sign the muster roll on and from the re-opening day of the year 1987-88. The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh application, which he accordingly did on 23rd June, 1987. In pursuance of this, the petitioner was issued an order dated 29th July, 1987. This order is identical to the earlier two orders. However, the petitioner was asked to resume his duties in one of the other schools managed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner states that during his three years of service in the two schools of the respondent No. 2, his work was satisfactory and no complaint whatsoever was ever made against his teaching ability or his behaviour as a teacher.

5.On 13th June, 1988 the petitioner went to resume his duty in the respondent No. 3 school on the re-opening of the said school for the academic year 1988-89. However, he was surprised when the Headmaster handed him a letter dated 13th June, 1988 expressing his inability to continue the petitioner in services of respondent No. 2 insti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document