Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Nirmala Revappa Pattanshetti
Versus
Mahadev Ramchandra Mali
Decided on, FEBRUARY 15, 2006
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Rule 3, Explanation - Statement-cum-letter by appellant allegedly relinquishing her claim to the post of Head of the School - Statement should be as clear as possible and such intention should be reflected in unequivocal terms - It should be voluntary, plain, unambiguous and should admit only one meaning - As the statement/letter does not fall in that category, Tribunal committed manifest error to hold that the appellant had no right to claim the post of Head in view of her statement of relinquishment. - From perusal of the letter and its last line in particular, the appellant cannot be said to have had relinquished her claim to the post of Head of the school in unequivocal terms. Looking to the language of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules employed by the Legislature, the statement contemplated in the explanation appended to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, relinquishing claim to the post of Head, should be as clear as possible and such intention should be reflected in unequivocal terms more particularly if such senior teacher is a woman. In other words, the statement not only need to be made voluntarily or with full understanding but it should be plain, unambiguous and admit only one meaning. From perusal of the statement/letter in question, it does not fall in that category. Moreover, admittedly the statement was not made by the appellant before the so called appointment of respondent No. 1. From the plain reading of the letter, it does not show that the appellant had relinquished her claim in unequivocal terms which is a basic requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the rules. Secondly, the appellant was possessing the Bachelor’s degree in Education and was admittedly qualified teacher to be appointed as Head of the school; thirdly, the appellant was seniormost teacher in the school; fourthly, she had not relinquished her claim to the post of Head in the manner in which it was required as provided for in the explanation appended to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3; fifthly, the procedure mentioned in Rule 3 was not followed by the management while appointing respondent No. 1 and, lastly, the Education Officer while recording the so-called statement of the appellant was not diligent enough to see whether the procedure was followed by the management. The Tribunal committed manifest and apparent error in applying sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 to hold that the appellant has no right to claim the post of Head in view of her statement of relinquishment, overlooking and/or ignoring the fact that the mandatory procedure prescribed in Rule 3 was not followed scrupulously. Even the Single Judge also proceeded on the assumption that appointment of respondent No. 1 to the post of Head Master was regular appointment and that the appellant in writing had relinquished her claim to the said post. In view thereof, the Single Judge proceeded to observe that the only hitch in the appointment was that respondent No. 1 was not seniormost teacher. It is thus clear that neither tribunal examined the case in proper perspective nor the Single Judge.
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Rule 12 - Inter se seniority list - Appellant’s claim to the post of Head of the School - Appellant did not raise any objection to the seniority list showing respondent No. 1 as her senior - It does not mean that she had relinquished her right or claim on the said post in 1987-1989 inasmuch as at that stage respondent No. 1 was only incharge Head Master - Impugned judgment and order of the School Tribunal and the Single Judge appointing respondent No. 1 as Head of the School quashed and set aside.
D. B. BHOSALE, J.
( 1 ) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 23. 8. 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition no. 3792 of 2000 by which the writ petition was rejected at the stage of admission. In the writ petition, the appellant had impugned the judgment and order dated 23. 6. 2000 of the Presiding Officer, additional School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur in appeal No. 71 of 1998. Respondent no. 1 had filed the said appeal challenging his reduction in rank from the post of Head to the post of Assistant teacher.
( 2 ) THE school tribunal by its judgment and order dated 23. 6. 2000 declared an appointment of the appellant as Head Mistress of Shri Santa Damaji mahavidyalaya, Mangalwedha, the school run by respondent no. 2 (for short "the school"), to be illegal and against the provisions of the maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "the Act") and the rules made in that behalf and further directed to restore respondent no. 1 to his original post of Head of the school and granting all benefits attached to the said post.
( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 - Shri Vidya Vikas Mandal, mangalwedha (for short "the institution or management") started the school in the year 1985-86. It was initially started on a non-grant basis. Subsequently, from the year 1988, the school started receiving partial grant-in-aid and from 1991-92 it became a 100% grantable school. Admittedly, right from the inception, the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the school i. e. from 22. 10. 1985. She had already passed her b. A. , B. Ed and was thus fully qualified to be appointed as a trained Assistant Teacher.
( 4 ) THE case set up by the appellant is that respondent no. 1 was appointed in the school in the untrained teachers scale, straight a way to the post of Head Master, with effect from 1. 8. 1987. The said appointment was as Incharge Head Master for the period from 1. 8. 1987 to 30. 6. 1988. His appointment was thereafter continued from time to time until the appellant was appointed to the post of Head of the school on 23. 4. 1998. Though respondent no. 1 was working as the Head for about ten years, admittedly his appointment was not approved by respondent no. 3 - Education Officer. Respondent no. 1 was not qualified to be appointed to the post of Head in 1987-88 and, therefore, all throughout he was treated as Incharge Head Master of the school. It appears that statements in the form of letters were recorded in the presence of the Education Officer on 25. 6. 1997 by which, it is alleged by respondent no. 1, that the seven teachers including the appellant, who were senior to respondent no. 1, had relinquished their right of appointment on the post of Head and in view thereof it was claimed by respondent no. 1 that his appointment as the Head was legal and was made in adherence to the provisions of Rule 3 (3) of the maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Rules, 1981 (for short "the rules" ).
( 5 ) IT appears that since respondent no. 1 was not possessing a required qualification to be appointed as Head, respondent no. 3 did not approve of his appointment and, therefore, he was continued as Inharge Head. Since the management was not making an appointment of a regular Head Master, respondent No. 3 stopped grant-in-aid to the school which ultimately forced the institution to appoint the appellant as the Head.
( 6 ) RESPONDENT no. 1 handed over the charge to the appellant, on her being appointed as Head of the school, without raising any objection and without any demure on 23. 4. 1998. Her appointment was initially approved as Incharge Head Mistress and thereafter as Head of the school and as such she was granted scale of Head of the school with effect from 24. 4. 1998. It is this action of the institution, which according to respondent no. 1 was amounting to reduction of his rank, was challenged in appeal un
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
