Reduction in workload does not amount to reduction in rank under the MEPS Act.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.9.1999 in appeal No.70 of 1997 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur. The appeal, filed by respondent no.1 under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation, Act (for short "MEPS Act"), challenging his termination has been allowed by the Tribunal. The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads thus:

Appeal is allowed as under.

The orders of reducing the appellant from full time teacher to part time teacher and from part time teacher to teacher on Clock Hour Basis issued by the Deputy Director of Education and Respondent No.1 are hereby declared illegal and are quashed and set aside.

Appellant is restored to full time teacher in Higher Secondary School by name Shree Nutan Prashala Jr.College, Solapur, since 1.4.1994. He is entitled to get salaries as a full time teacher from 1.4.1994, till he is restored as a full time lecturer. Respondents are directed to pay the salary with effect from 1.4.1994 within the period of three months and further they are directed to allow the appellant to join his duties as a full time teacher in Shree Nutan Prashala Jr.College, Solapur run by Respondent No.1 immediately.

No order as to costs."

2. The facts that are relevant and necessary to decide the questions raised in this petition are that respondent No.1, who, at the relevant time, was only MA (Sociology) and MA (Political Science), was initially appointed on 5.7.1990 by the petitioner-institution in their Junior College on clock hour basis. Admittedly he was not holding B.Ed qualification, which is prescribed under Rule 6 read with Schedule B-III of MEPS Rules. On 30th March, 1991, respondent no.2 - Education Officer had approved the appointment of respondent no.1 only for one year by relaxing the condition of qualification. On 11.6.1991, respondent no.1 was appointed as full time teacher for sociology with effect from 19.6.1991. On 11.6.1992, he was once again appointed for a period of two years (i.e. 1992-93 and 1993-94) on probation with effect from 15.6.1992. Respondent No.2, however, approved his appointment only for one year i.e. for 1992-93. Respondent No.1 thereafter was refused approval for academic year 1993-94 vide order dated 5.10.1994 on the ground that he was untrained teacher. Respondent No.1 was once again refused approval for the year 1994-95 on the same ground vide letter dated 20.3.1995 issued by respondent no.2 - Education Officer. On 23.3.1995, respondent no.1 informed to respondent no.2 in writing that he is ready to work as part time teacher since he was not holding the prescribed qualification. Respondent No.2, however, granted approval only for the year 1994-95 with effect from 13.6.1995 as part time teacher. In 1992-93, respondent no.1 had taken admission for B.Ed course and he acquired the said qualification on 24.8.1995. Even thereafter, respondent no.1 was continued as part time teacher for 1995-96 and his appointment was approved as part time teacher by respondent no.2. He was thereafter granted approval vide letter dated 29.11.1997 on clock hour basis. According to respondent no.1, the approval granted on clock hour basis amounts to reduction in rank and hence he filed the instant appeal under section 9 of the MEPS Act.

3. The School Tribunal after having considered rival contentions of the parties and the material on record, in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment held thus:

" .... .... .... it is clear that appointment order dated 11.6.1992 which was issued by respondent no.1 to appellant as a full time lecturer in Sociology was on probation for the period of two academic years i.e. 1992 to 1994. Appellant has satisfactory completed the probation period of two years and Deputy Director of Education has also accorded approval to the appellant’s appointment as a full time