IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
V.M. Deshpande, J.
Avinash Kashinath Shinde - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Ambedkar Smarak Samiti Shikshan & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8205 of 2019
Decided On : 13-01-2021
Termination - Appointment Dispute - Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Section 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the judgment of the School Tribunal and the termination of his services, and requested reinstatement with backwages. The respondent college terminated the petitioner's services following the allowance of an appeal by another employee. The petitioner had not filed a statutory appeal before the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal before the School Tribunal challenging the termination within 15 days. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal and the issue of the petitioner's appointment within one year.
Issues: Dispute over the petitioner's appointment category and the consequences of the appeal allowance on the petitioner's termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of availing the statutory appeal remedy provided by the MEPS Act and left the appointment category issue for the Tribunal to decide.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal challenging the termination within 15 days, with directions for the Tribunal to decide the appeal and appointment issue within one year.
JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is represented by learned counsel Shri P. N. Shende, respondent nos.1 to 3 are represented by learned counsel Shri Rugved Dhore and respondent no.4 - Deputy Director of Education is represented by learned Assistant Government Pleader Smt. M.A. Barabde.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for setting aside the judgment dated 21.09.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of School Tribunal, Chandrapur in Appeal No. STC/15/2016. He also prays for quashing and setting aside the order of termination of his services dated 19.10.2019 and seeking direction that respondent nos.1 to 3 be directed to reinstate him with full backwages from the date of his termination. Another prayer is that Appeal No. STC/15/2016 be remanded back with a direction to implead the petitioner as a party respondent to the appeal and decide the appeal afresh.
4. Respondent nos.1 and 2 runs Ramabai Ambedkar Vidyalaya and Junior College of Arts, Saoli, Dist. Chandrapur (respondent no.3). Respondent no.3 - College is admitted to the grants from the State Government.
5. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in respondent no.3- College by respondent no.2. The order of appointment is dated 26.06.2016 and it is placed on record at Annexure-II. In pursuance to the order of appointment, the petitioner joined the services. According to the petitioner, the approval was given by the respondent no.4 vide communication dated 03.08.2016 on a condition of presenting the Validity Certificate. Shri Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of approval, respondent no.3 - College was not recipient of the grant-in-aid, however it is subsequently admitted to the grant.
6. According to Shri Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.5 was terminated from service as a Junior Lecturer of the respondent no.3 - College vide order dated 24.06.2016. She, therefore, preferred a statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the MEPS Act" for the sake of brevity) and set up challenge to her termination before the School Tribunal. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. STC/15/2016. Mr. Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a party to the said appeal. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 21.09.2019 allowed the appeal filed on behalf of respondent no.5 and directed the respondents therein to reinstate the appellant (respondent no.5 herein) to her former post.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the consequence of allowing the appeal filed on behalf of respondent no.5 by the Tribunal was that respondent nos.1 to 3 terminated the services of the petitioner vide order of termination dated 19.10.2019. He submits that the services of the petitioner were terminated without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, he prays for the reliefs as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
8. Mr. Rugved Dhore, learned counsel for the management submitted that in this writ petition the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as it is his submission that the petitioner has not availed the remedy of filing statutory appeal before the Tribunal. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Before the appointment order being issued to the petitioner, an advertisement was published by respondent nos.1 and 2 in the newspaper calling applications from eligible and interested candidates to get appointed on the post of Junior Lecturer in respondent no.3 college. The advertisement shows that the advertisement was published for three posts, out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, one post was reserved for Nomadic Tribe (A) cat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.