Trustees of S. P. R. Jain Kanyashala Trust and Sarvajanik Education Society and others vs Abdul Kaleem and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 Supreme(Bom) 166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.
Trustees of S.P.R. Jain Kanyashala Trust and
Sarvajanik Education Society others ..... Petitioners.
Versus
Shri Abdul Kaleem others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 2937 3708 of 1997, decided on 4-3-1999.
Advocates appeared :
Y.V. Divekar i/b, Divekar Co. in W.P. No. 2937 of 1997, for petitioners and in W.P. No. 3708 of 1997, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
A.N. Maniyar in W.P. No. 2937, 3708 of 1997, for respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3.
M.M. Vashi in W.P. No. 2937 of 1997, for respondent No. 2 and in W.P. No. 3708 of 1997, for the petitioner.
P.C. Kansara, A.G.P. in W.P. No. 2937, 3708 of 1997, for respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4.

Headnote:Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981
-Rule 6-Qualification of Teachers-Proviso to Rule 6 applies only to secondary schools-Junior colleges are excluded from applicability of the said proviso by implication.
-Rules 2(1)(j) and 6, Schedule B-Item No. III of Schedule B enables the management to appoint teachers having no B.Ed. qualification in junior college, provided they are entitled for relaxation of qualification from the Director of Education for enabling the management to make temporary appointment.

JUDGMENT - T .K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---These two writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. Bom./15/96 and Appeal No. Bom./28/96, dated 16th May 1997. Writ Petition No. 2937/1997 has been filed by the Trustees of S.P.R. Jain Kanyashala Trust and Sarvajanik Education Society and Writ Petition No. 3708/1997 has been filed by Ms. Lata Rukhana, who is working as an Asstt. Teacher under the aforesaid Trust, in S.T. Mehta Women's Jr. College of Arts, at Cama Lane, Bombay. This common order, as indicated above, is under challenge in these writ petitions and they were heard together. Therefore, I am disposing of these petitions by this common judgment.

2.The controversy involved in these writ petitions centres round the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Greater Bombay dated 22nd February 1996, whereby he had pointed out to the Principal, S.T. Women College, Kama Lane, Ghatkopar (W), Bombay-86, that the petitioner -Smt. Lata Rukhana was not entitled to be appointed as full time teacher in preference to one Shri Abdul Kaleem, who is a fully qualified teacher, available for appointment. Shri Abdul Kaleem is impleaded as responded No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 2937/97 and as respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 3708/97. Thus Smt. Lata Rukhana's appointment as full time teacher was found to be illegal and Shri Abdul Kaleem was directed to be appointed as full time teacher by the Dy. Director. In pursuance to this Order dated 22-2-1996, the Management as per their Order dated 22.2.1996, appointed Shri Abdul Kaleem as a full-time lecturer in Psychology from 22-2-1996 to 30-4-1996. By virtue of this Order Shri Abdul Kaleem, who was newly appointed as a part time lecturer was made full time lecturer and Smt. Lata Rukhana was made a part time teacher. Being aggrieved by this Order, Smt. Lata Rukhana filed an Appeal before the School Tribunal. In the meantime, the service of Abdul Kaleem was sought to be terminated by the management on the pretext that his performance during his probation was not satisfactory, as per Order dated 19th March 1996. Against this Order Abdul Kaleem has also filed an Appeal before the School Tribunal. These two Appeals were heard together by the School Tribunal and as stated earlier it passed the impugned Order dated 16-5-1997, which is being challenged in these two writ petitions.

3.As narrated by the School Tribunal, Smt. Lata Rukhana was appointed in the year 1988, as a temporary teacher on clock hourly basis and thereafter, she was re-appointed on year to year basis as part time and full time teacher on a temporary basis. She was not having a B.Ed. qualification as prescribed under the Maharashtra Employees and Private Schools Regulations Act, 1997, hereinafter referred to as the Act. She was having only M.A. degree and at that time she was doing her M. Phil. She was serving the school on year to year basis and the last appointment of Smt. Lata Rukhana was on 17th June 1995 till 30th April 1996.

4.Shri Abdul Kaleem was initially appointed as part-time temporary lecturer for the period from 25th July 1995 to 30th April, 1996 and his services were to be terminated from 30th April, 1996. Subsequently he made a representation to the School Management as well as to the Deputy Director of Education, complaining that as he was fully qualified teacher, having M.A., M. Phil and B.Ed. qualifications, he ought to have been appointed as full time lecturer in the place of Smt. Lata Rukhana who, according to him, is an unqualified teacher. It is in this background that the Dy. Director of Education has passed the aforesaid order dated 22-2-96, recognising the superior claim of Shri Abdul Kaleem to be appointed as a full time teacher over Smt. Lata Rukhana. The School Tribunal after hearing both the sides and the management, held that Shri Abdul Kaleem ought to have been appointed as a full time teacher and accordingly direction was given to the concerned authori

Click Here to Read the rest of this document