JUDGMENT:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, and the learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Nagpur, on 10-3-2000, whereby the School Tribunal allowed the appeal presented by respondent NO.1-Teacher and issued a direction to the petitioner-Management in respect of reinstatement of the Teacher in service with 50% of back wages.

3. It is the contention of the respondent-Teacher that he was serving with the petitioner-Management as Hindi Teacher since 1-7-1987 and was continuously in employment till the date of his termination, i.e. 3-10-1998. At the time of his entry in service, the respondent-Teacher possessed qualification of SSC and he had acquired the degree in Hindi Pandit. According to the respondent-Teacher, he had put in more than 11 years of service and that he is, therefore, deemed to be a confirmed Teacher. According to him, the order of termination issued by the petitioner-Management is illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. It is further contented by the respondent-Teacher that initially he was appointed as Hindi Teacher in Narayan Madavi Vidyalaya. However, the said School was closed down by the Management and thereafter his services were continued in another School run by the Management at Minsi. It is further contended by the respondent-Teacher that his service record was unblemished, there was no enquiry initiated by the Management before the termination of his services and as such the impugned order is bad in law.

4. The petitioner-Management appeared and controverted the contentions of the respondent-Teacher by filing a written statement. According to the petitioner-Management, the respondent-Teacher was not qualified for being appointed as Teacher. According to them, the respondent-Teacher was possessing only SSC qualification and was not possessing training qualification, as required by the law. According to the petitioner-Management, the alleged appointment of the respondent-Teacher is itself in violation of the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 read with Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and Schedule B to the said Rules. It is further contended that the School where the respondent-Teacher was serving, was closed down and as such the services of the respondent-Teacher along with other employees were put to an end. The petitioner-Management has specifically denied that after closure of the School, the respondent-Teacher was absorbed in some other School run by them. It is specifically contended by the petitioner-Management that the respondent-Teacher did not possess the requisite qualification for his continuation as Assistant Teacher and as such he cannot claim any protection from the Tribunal in respect of his services.

5. The School Tribunal, after receiving the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent-Teacher has established his case and as such, allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the order of termination passed by the petitioner-Management.

6. I have perused the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal and heard the arguments advanced by the respective counsel appearing for the parties.

7. It cannot be controverted that the respondent-Teacher does not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School run by the petitioner-Management. It is also not controverted that at the time of his appointment, the respondent-Teacher was possessing only SSC qualification and did not possess any training qualification prescribed by the Rules. The School Tribunal has observed that the respondent-Teacher had put in about 11 years of service as untrained

Click Here to Read the rest of this document