The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of following statutory provisions for appointment and termination of services, the legal consequences of completing the probation period, and the lack of requirement for specific confirmation order.

ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard.

2. The petitioners challenge judgment and order dated 7th of July, 1995 passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik in Appeal No.5 of 1993. By the impugned judgment the School Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and has directed the petitioner-Management to reinstate the respondent to her original post along with backwages and all the monetary benefits attached to the post.

3. The respondent was initially appointed in December, 1987 on leave vacancy for a period of five months. Thereafter under letter of appointment dated 1st of July, 1988 she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on the pay scale of Rs. 290-1-390-15-465. Fresh appointment order was issued on 28th May, 1990 as well as 31st May, 1991. The respondent's services came to be terminated with effect from 1-5-1992 and therefore the respondent filed the said appeal which was allowed by the impugned order.

4. While challenging the impugned order, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent was appointed in a temporary vacancy. The post was meant for the reserved category candidate, but the petitioner belonged to the open category, and hence the appointment of the respondent was not approved by the Social Welfare Department (Education). Considering the same, it was strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioners that the post was meant for the reserved category candidate, however, as no reserve category candidate was available at the relevant time, every year fresh appointment letter was issued and the respondent was appointed on temporary basis with clear understanding that her appointment would come to an end, moment the reserved category candidate was to be found for appointment. Drawing attention to the orders issued every year, it was also contended that the orders nowhere disclose that the appointment was on permanent basis or that the respondent was a probationer. Referring to the letter dated 1st February, 1990 from the Social Welfare Department, it was contended that the approval was granted to the appointment of the respondent on temporary basis with specific clarification that the post was meant for reserved category candidate. It was also argued that unless the respondent is appointed on probation, he cannot claim deemed confirmation under section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978. In that regard reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Bhartiya Gramin Punarrachana Sanstha vs. Vijaykumar and others, reported in 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 563.

5. On the other hand, it is sought to be contended that the respondent was appointed in a permanent and clear vacancy and not in a post meant for the reserved category candidate and she having worked continuously nearly for five years, on completion of the period of two years, she had acquired deemed confirmation in the services of the petitioner-Management and, therefore, the petitioners could not have terminated services of the respondent without following procedure required to be followed for taking any action in the nature of termination of services of a permanent employee. Drawing attention to the appointment orders issued, it was sought to be contended that the same nowhere disclose that the appointment was in temporary vacancy or that it was in the post meant for reserved category candidate. Referring to the impugned judgment, it was also argued that the same clearly discloses that the petitioners could not establish that the post was meant for reserved category candidate. Attention was drawn to the unreported decisions in the matter of Anjarla Shikshan Sanstha vs. Smt.Kumudini Devji Kulkarni and others, in W P. No. 4623 of 1995 delivered on 30th March, 1988 and in Lok Shikshan Mandal Sangali vs. Gajanan Chandrakant Todkar in W P. No. 5369 of 1996 delivered on 10th of December, 1998, as also in Venkatraman Shankar vs. Mrs.Jasbir Kaur Anand and others in W P. N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document