The law will not come to the aid of an employee who abandons service and seeks relief after a prolonged period.

JUDGMENT :

NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. Rule. The Respondents have filed their Affidavits in Reply. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd March 2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent-Education Officer of the 1st Respondent-State, refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. The 4th Respondent is the Headmaster of 3rd Respondent-Management.

3. The Petition is ambiguity personified. It is replete with conflicting statements. Confusion is worse confounded, for the contesting Respondents make conflicting averments made in their own respective Reply Affidavits. There is contradiction all around. Astonishingly, the contentions of each side score a self-goal and defeat their own stands.

4. The Petitioner claims to have completed his probation period of three years as Shikshan Sevak in the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (English). He prays for continuation in the post and disbursement of commensurate pay. The Management on the other hand claims to have terminated the probation period of the Petitioner mid-way and further claims that the Petitioner has accepted a contractual appointment thereafter. The third party in the ring is the 2nd Respondent, the Education Officer, who contends that the Petitioner completed the probation period of three years as Shikshan Sevak, but insists that approval to his appointment as Shikshan Sevak is refused on account of a reduction of establishment posts because of a reduction in number of students. The only point of agreement between all three Respondents is that the Petitioner absented himself from work since 1st January 2020. This is the gist of averments based on which we are called upon to return a finding.

5. The facts reveal that from 2009 to 2012 the Petitioner was appointed on a temporary contractual basis on a non-grant post in the unaided section of the 3rd Respondent School. In 2013, two aided posts of Assistant Teachers fell vacant due to the superannuation of two teachers. The Respondent-Management sought permission of the Education Officer to publish advertisements to fill up the posts. There was no response. The Management yet proceeded to issue an advertisement, call for applications, undertook the selection process and filled up the vacant posts.

6. By an order dated 2nd December 2014, the Management appointed the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on probation from 3rd December 2014 to 2nd December 2017. As per procedure, a proposal for approval was forwarded to the Education Department. Before the proposal was approved, three posts of teaching staff were reduced on account of a reduction in student strength and as per the rules, the Petitioner being the last to be recruited was first to be relieved. According to the Management, and as seen from documents on record, the Petitioner acceded to his removal as Shikshan Sevak even before completing his probation period and accepted a contractual appointment on a purely temporary basis with the same Management. The documents on record clearly indicate as much.

7. The contradictions commence here. Despite terminating his probation period prematurely and appointing him on a contractual basis, the Management sent a proposal for approval of the Petitioner’s appointment. To add to this conundrum, on being asked by the Department about vacancies, the Management clearly responded in the negative — saying there were no vacancies, and thus contradicting its own proposal for approval. This led, logically and inevitably, to the action of the Education Department refusing approval.

8. Insisting on being in continued service, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition (St) No. 98474 of 2020 in this Court, seeking various reliefs in respect of his employment. By an order dated 9th July 2021, a Division Bench of this High Court recorded the statement of the Management and accepted that the Petitioner was appointed on a year-to-year basis and since January 2020, neither had he continued his