Jeewan Jyoti Shikshan Prasark Mandal and Others vs The Education Officer (Secondary) and Others

V.A. Naik, J—Since the issue involved in both the petitions is interconnected and they arise from the same set of facts, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1402/1999 is the education society-management and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3735/1998 is the Assistant Teacher employed by the education society. They would be hereinafter referred to as the ''management'' and the ''Assistant Teacher'' for the sake of convenience. The management appointed the Assistant Teacher during the academic session 1994-95 to teach in the school by name Jeewan Jyoti High School at Thana. The appointment of the Assistant Teacher was for a period of one year and the approval was also granted to the said appointment. In the year 1995-96 there was reduction in the strength of the students in the three schools run by the management and three teachers were declared surplus. The Assistant Teacher in this case was not one of them. According to the management, the Assistant Teacher in this case was not declared surplus as he was appointed to teach the subject of Biology and there were only three teachers for teaching the subject of Biology in the three schools. The proposal of the Assistant Teacher was again sent to the Education Officer for grant of approval during the academic session 1995-96 and 1996-97, but by the impugned order dated 10.11.1997, the Education Officer refused to grant approval to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher. According to the Education Officer, there were only five sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers in the school run by the management at Thana, Distt Bhandara and when three other teachers were declared surplus, the appointment of the Assistant Teacher in this case could not have been made, specially when there was a backlog in V.J. and N.T. category. The management as well the Assistant Teacher have challenged the order of the Education Officer denying approval to the petitioner for the subsequent academic session from 1995-96.

When the writ petition came up for admission and hearing before this Court, this Court, by recording some reasons granted interim relief in favour of the Assistant Teacher herein. By the said interim relief the Education Officer was directed to grant provisional approval to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher and hence the provisional approval is granted to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher from the year 1999. In view of the provisional approval, the Assistant Teacher continues to work in the school at Thana and the Education authorities are paying the salary to the Assistant Teacher.

It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that in the facts of the case, it would be necessary to direct the Education Officer to grant permanent approval to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher in this case, as the Assistant Teacher was eligible for appointment on the said post. Though we find that there was a backlog at the relevant time when the Assistant Teacher was appointed, the Assistant Teacher is continuously working in the school at Thana since 1994-95 and is also receiving the salary from the Education authorities since the year 1999. There is no other reason for not granting approval to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher except that there was a backlog in the V.J. and N.T. category. It is most likely that the backlog must have been removed by now as the proposal of the Assistant Teacher for grant of approval was considered in the year 1996-97 and the Assistant Teacher is working for more than 20 years from the date of his appointment. In the facts of the case, when there is no other reason for not granting approval to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher for the academic session 1995-96 to 1997-98, it would be necessary to direct the Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher for this period also so that the Assistant Teacher would have continuity in service from the date of the appointment in the year 1994. However, since we find that one Mr. S.R. Ukey was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher from the reserved category and since the strength of the teachers at the relevant time i.e. 1995 to 1997 would be more than 5 (sanctioned strength being 5), it would not be in the interest of justice to direct the Education Officer to pay the salary of the Assistant Teacher for the period during which the salary is not paid. In the interest of justice, it would be necessary to direct the Education Officer to grant permanent approval to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher from the initial date of his appointment so that the Assistant Teacher would have continuity in service.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The respondent-Education Officer is directed to grant permanent approval to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher from the initial date of the appointment in the year 1994 as the Assistant Teacher is still in service and is receiving the salary from the Education Authorities after the provisional approval was granted in the year 1999. The necessary order granting approval to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher should be passed within a period of two weeks. The Assistant Teacher would not be entitled to the salary for the intervening period, in the circumstances of the case.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.