Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Anil S/o Govindrao Korde – Petitioner
Versus
Siddeshwar Krida Mandal & Ors. – Respondents
WP No.8134 of 2012
Decided On : 08-09-2016
Appointment - Education Dispute - MEPS Rules, 1981 - The judgment discusses the appointment of an 'Assistant Teacher' and the subsequent termination of his services by the Management. The court analyzed the legality of the appointment, the termination order, and the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned orders and reinstated the petitioner with back wages.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' and subsequently terminated after 10 years of service. The Management challenged the legality of the appointment, leading to a dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination was illegal and unsustainable, as the appointment was in accordance with the law and the petitioner had worked for 10 years without any challenge from the Management.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the petitioner's appointment, the termination order, and the adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination after 10 years of service, without any challenge from the Management, was illegal and unsustainable. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the MEPS Rules, 1981.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was reinstated with 50% back wages. The court directed the Management to bear the burden of back wages.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad by which his Appeal No.18/2009 has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 22.4.2013 passed by respondent No.6 Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad.
3. The contentions of the petitioner can be summarized as follows :-
(a) After following the due procedure of law, the petitioner was appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' in respondent No.2 school from 25% Graduates' quota.
(b) After completion of his probation of 2 years, he was granted permanency.
(c) Respondent No.3/Education Officer granted approval to the permanent appointment of the petitioner.
(d) In WP No.5184/2007, the Education Officer was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner.
(e) The appointment of the petitioner was declared to be valid by the directions of the Education Officer dated 25.3.2009 and the appointment of respondent No.4 was held to be invalid.
(f) Respondent No.4 is the son of the President of respondent No.1/Management.
(g) Upon being annoyed by the above, and since his son could not be accommodated, the President and the Secretary of the Institution terminated the permanent services of the petitioner by order dated 22.4.2009.
(h) Prior to terminating the permanent service of 10 years of the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity of hearing.
(i) The petitioner filed Appeal No.18/2009 on 8.5.2009.
(j) During the pendency of the appeal, the Administrator was appointed on the Management of the society.
(k) Respondent No.4/Son of the President sought intervention in the appeal before the Tribunal, which was permitted.
(l) The Management raised the issued of unlawful appointment of the petitioner after 10 years.
(m) Question of legality of the petitioner's appointment was entertained by the School Tribunal after 10 years and by the impugned judgment dated 3.9.2012, the appeal was dismissed.
(n) The School Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the MEPS Rules prescribing a procedure to terminate an employee, was not followed by the Management, that the Management was estopped from challenging the appointment of the petitioner after 10 years, that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and an unlawful resolution was passed.
(o) On 25.3.2009, the Education Officer considering the objections raised by respondent No.4/son of the President delivered a detailed and well reasoned order running into about more than 50 paragraphs thereby concluding that the appointment of the petitioner was perfectly legal and proper and the appointment of respondent No.4/son of the President was made illegally and hence his continuance in service would be subject to the pleasure of the Management.
(p) This order of the Education Officer was challenge by respondent No.4 in WP No.1615/2010. No interim relief was granted to respondent No.4 by this Court.
(q) Respondent No.4 filed a civil application No.5885/2011 seeking an order from this Court by way of a direction to the Administrator to pay the monthly salary of respondent No.4.
(r) When this Court indicated its inclination to reject the civil application, respondent No.4 withdrew the application and which has been disposed of by order dated 19.3.2012.
(s) WP No.1615/2010 is still pending before this Court in relation to the order of the Education Officer dated 25.3.2009.
(t) Despite the above fact, respondent No.6 herein entertained the representation of respondent No.4 and by a cryptic order dated 22.4.2013, directed the education Officer to reconsider the appointment of the petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate for the Management Mr.Bhavthankar has strenuously supported the impugned order. His contentions can be summarized as follows :-
(a) The subsequent appointment order of the petitioner dated 18.8.2003 was converted into a temporary appointment.
(b) The petitioner has accepted the said or
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
