JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---Heard Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Lambat, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Shri Dhote, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2.The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-2-1989 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. STN/35 of 1988 presented by the present petitioner against the order of termination, which was dismissed. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was serving in the School run by the respondent No. 1 as Assistant Teacher. The petitioner being the senior-most qualified and eligible Teacher, was promoted to the post of Head Master on 1-7-1982. It is submitted that from 1970 till 1986, co-education was imparted in the school run by the respondent No. 1 Management, i.e. Ashok Vidyalaya, Umrer. The respondent No. 1 Management took a decision to bifurcate the school into two, i.e. boys' school and girls' school. The bifurcation of the school came to be effected from the academic session 1986-87. It is further contended that the respondent No. 1 Management mala fidely transferred the petitioner from boys' school to the newly created girls' school in the capacity of Head Master. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that since the girls' school was having strength of less than five hundred pupils, transfer of petitioner amounts to reducing the status of petitioner since pay scale depends upon strength of students and, therefore, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1527/86. It is contended by the learned Counsel that on 11-12-1986 this Court disposed of the writ petition and transfer order was cancelled and this Court directed the Management to repost the petitioner as Head Master in the boy's school. It is further contended that on 18-8-1987 statement of allegations was served on the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer of the Management and his explanation was sought. The enquiry was proceeded with, which ultimately culminated in issuance of order of termination dated 29-2-1988 by the Management. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner filed above referred appeal before the School Tribunal and the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order dated 20-2-1989 dismissed the same. Hence, the present petition.

3.Shri Deshpande submitted that enquiry conducted by the respondent Management is violative of Rule 36(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. It is contended that at the relevant time, the petitioner being the Head of the School, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 36, it is the President alone, who was legally entitled to issue statement of allegations to the petitioner for the purpose of seeking his explanation. It is further contended that in the instant case, since statement of allegations was issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the management, the said action of the management is violative of sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 of the Rules of 1981.

4.Another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was the Head Master at the relevant time, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 1 to constitute Enquiry Committee as per sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 36 and out of three members contemplated by the said provisions, one member of the Enquiry Committee ought to have been the President himself. However, according to the learned Counsel, the President was not the member of the Enquiry Committee and, therefore, Enquiry Committee was not properly constituted, which has resulted in vitiating the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Committee against the petitioner. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and order of School Tribunal is, therefore, not sustaina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document