JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---Pursuant to the notice issued on 22-10-2002 this matter posted today for final disposal. The respondents have been do served. Parties have exchanged their pleadings. Arguments of Counsel for the parties were advanced for final disposal consent. In the circumstances, rule. Rule made returns forthwith, by consent.

2. This writ petition under Article 227 takes exception to judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, dated 25-6-2002 in Appeal No. 104 of 1998.

3. Briefly stated, the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the petitioner school. Initially, appointment of the respondent No. 1 was on temporary basis against reserved post. The Tribunal has, however, found that letter Exhibit 19 the respondent No. 1 was appointed against clear and permanent vacancy on probation. Be that as it may, certain complaints were received against the respondent No. 1 from the students regarding his misbehaviour. In the wake of these complaints, the respondent No. 1 tendered resignation on 16-8-1998. The resignation is addressed to the Chairman of the petitioner Institute. It clearly records that having regard to the serious allegations made against him and till he is absolved of the said allegations, he was resigning from the present post and he may be allowed to resume later on. In substance, the letter clearly expresses the respondent No. 1's intention to resign from the post having regard to the complaints pending against him. That resignation letter was placed before the Managing Committee of the petitioner Institute in its meeting held on 29-11-1998 and was accepted by the Managing Committee. Communication in this behalf was sent to the petitioner on 9-12-1998.

4. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal being Appeal No. 104 of 1998 asserting that he was not allowed to attend to his duties which amounts to termination. In this appeal, no reference is made to the resignation tendered by the respondent No. 1 and its acceptance. The appeal, as aforesaid, was filed on 15-12-1998. The petitioner appeared in the said proceedings and pointed out that the case made out by the respondent No. 1 is false to his knowledge and the fact of resignation tendered by him was brought on record. It is only thereafter the respondent No. 1 by filing further affidavit chose to assert that the said resignation was latter on withdrawn by the management. The Tribunal proceeded to examine the rival case and has found in the impugned judgment that the respondent No. 1 was appointed against a clear and permanent vacancy and, therefore, his appointment will have to be treated as on probation. The Tribunal has further held that the resignation given by the respondent No. 1 has been ignored by the management and treated as cancelled. The Tribunal further held that the resignation was not in conformity with the provisions of section 7 of the Act as well as Rule 40 and, therefore, the same was of no avail. On this reasoning, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1. That decision is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the findings recorded by the School Tribunal that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was against a clear and permanent vacancy and should be treated to be on probation for a period of two years. Besides, the petitioner has assailed the finding given by the School Tribunal that the resignation would be of no avail because the management has treated the said resignation as cancelled. The petitioner has also assailed the correctness of the conclusion given by the Tribunal with regard to non-compliance of section 7 of the Act and Rule 40 of the Rules. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has adopted the reasons given by the Tribunal and contends that there is no infirmity either in the approach or the reasoning of the Tribunal. If th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document