1997 Supreme(Bom) 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
V.S. Sirpurkar B.H. Marlapalle, JJ.
Vidya Vikas Samiti, Paratwada another ..... Petitioners.
Versus
Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Amravati Division, Amravati others ..... Respondents.
W.P. Nos. 3524, 3547 of 1995, with 1198, 1946, 1947 and 225 of 1996, decided on 4-8-1997.
Advocates appeared :
N.R. Saboo, R.L. Khapre and A.M. Deshmukh, for the petitioners.
M.G. Bhangde, V.V. Bhangde, Smt. S.S. Wandile, A.M. Badar, A.G. Mujumdar, A.G.P., for the respondents.

Headnote:Order I, Rule 10-SeeMaharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 41.

       Rules 31(2), 33, 41(5)(b), 3 and S -Placement of teacher-Teacher in a school attached to junior college placed at lecturer cannot be said to be promotion-Did not possess requisite qualification-Bringing back teacher to his original position could not amount to reversion-Order passed by Deputy Director valid.

       Rule 31(2) and 41(5)(b)-If, reversion to original post amounts to penal action-Teacher of middle class promoted to teach in junior college of students-Though, not qualified-Direction by Director to send him back to middle section-School Tribunal not agreeing, without holding enquiry-As it would amount to a penal action-Held-In absence of any channel for promotion from middle to junior section-Sending back would not be a penal action.-It does not appear from these rules that a post of a junior college lecturer is a promotional post for a teacher in a secondary school which is attached to a junior college. If the Legislature had intended that post to be a promotional post a clear cut provision to that effect would have been found in the rules. Instead, a glance at the rules generally, suggests that the promotional posts available to a teacher like the respondent No.2 are only Superintendent (where the number of classes is adequate for that post) or Assistant Head Master (where number of students is adequate) and a Head Master. The list of promotional posts does not go further. Therefore, placement of a teacher of a secondary school as a lecturer in the attached junior college would be merely a transfer. Again Rule 41(b)(ii) is clear enough to suggest that the inter se seniority of such teacher is retained, on transfer as a junior college/lecturer, which would be another clear indication in support of the view taken.

       Once it is held that was not a promotion the bringing back of the respondent No.2 in his original position as an assistant teacher could not amount to a reversion. If, it could not amount to a reversion there was no necessity of holding any departmental enquiry as is contemplated by the Rule. The Tribunal finding that an enquiry was a must therefore, must be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

       Rule 41-A middle class teacher transferred to junior college-Dy. Director ordering to be sent back-This move resisted by promo-lees in middle class-Direction to Tribunal to decide petitions, maintaining that teachers transfer to junior section was illegal.-Again in so far as the other Writ Petitions Nos. 1946/96 and 1947/96 are concerned, these are against the interim orders passed, and it is an admitted position that Appeal Nos. 150/95 and 149/95 are still pending. The Tribunal shall decide the rights of Miss W and Shri T in these appeals. It has to decide these appeals on the backdrop of this Courts finding that B placement as a junior college lecturer itself was illegal and that he was rightly brought back to school. The Tribunal shall do well to dispose of those appeals within three months from that day. In the meantime the stahus quo as it continue that day shall continue. If, ultimately it is found that Miss W and Shri T were not entitled to the reliefs that are claimed by them, they would still be paid for the actual services rendered by them by the management from their own funds.

       Rule 41-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I, Rule 10-Intervention by promotees-Necessary party-By the Order of Dy. Director teacher reverted back to middle section-Transfer to junior classes being illegal-Intervention by a junior teacher -Seeking interference which might affect her rights as well-Held-She can be allowed to join proceedings as her claim is similar to that of petitioner- That leaves in the field the last petition No. 225/96 filed by one Smt. D, D had made an application for intervention claiming that she had an interest in these two appeals. Again it must be made clear that Smt. D is claiming a direct interest on the basis of the death of Shri K and claims that she would have a right to be appointed as a junior college lecturer in the post created by the death of Shri K. That subject is distinct but, is essentially connected with the chaos which has been created by the management due to the placement of Shri B. The Tribunal has rejected her application for intervention and Smt. D has challenged that order rejecting her intervention application. The Court directs that the Tribunal should also hear Smt. D and allow her intervention application because even otherwise her claim is so intermingled with the claim of Smt. W and Shri T that it would be futile to consider her claim independently. Her claim, therefore, shall also be decided. The Court, therefore, allow the Writ Petition No. 225/96 and direct the Tribunal to hear Smt. D after allowing her application for intervention. Needless to say that this shall be done in Appeal Nos. 149/95 and 150/95. Shri Bh while opposing the application for intervention pointed out that Smt. D had made an application for intervention along with one Shri A. He points out that the Tribunal had rejected those applications. While Smt. D kept quiet Shri A had filed a writ petition against that order and this Court had confirmed the order. He accordingly, suggests that Ds application should also meet the same fate. The Court does not agree with this contention and holds that Smt. Ds claim is inextricably intermingled with the claims which are involved in Appeal Nos. 149/95 and 150/95.