AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for respective parties.
By this petition, the petitioner whose appeal has been dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, by impugned judgment dated 29.06.2019, preferred the present writ petition on following facts and grounds amongst others :-
In the present petition, the learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment hold that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was working at Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada and further his appointment as a “Headmaster”, was not made as per the MEPS Rules. Hence, by recording cogent reasons dismissed the appeal.
The petitioner, who approached before this Court, came with a submission that respondent No.1 is an Educational Society, who runs two Schools namely Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada and Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur. Out of these schools, the school namely Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, is receiving 100% grant-in-aid whereas, the other school namely Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur, is not receiving 100% grant-in-aid.
The petitioner stated before the learned Tribunal, that the school namely Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, was newly started by the respondent No.1-Management in the Academic Session 1990-1991. The petitioner who was possessing the requisite qualification for the post of “Assistant Teacher”, by following due procedure of law, came to be appointed as a “Trained Teacher”, on probation for a period of two years, vide appointment order dated 25.06.1990.
It is submitted by the petitioner that due to some personal difficulties in the year 1996, he has expressed his inability to work as a “Headmaster” and started doing the job as an “Assistant Teacher”. According to him, when the school admitted to grant-in-aid facility, the respondent No.1-Management, vide order dated 27.06.1997, promoted him against the post of “Headmaster”. He further stated that a proposal was forwarded to the Education Officer, who in turn seeks guidance from the Deputy Director of Education, as to whether the person having a graduate degree of BSW, B.Ed and not possessing the D.Ed qualification, can be considered as a “Trained Teacher” and whether the approval can be granted as an “Untrained Teacher” to the petitioner.
It is stated by the petitioner that Deputy Director of Education, expressed its inability to grant approval and therefore, he has filed Writ Petition No.609/2000, before this Court for issuing direction to the Deputy Director of Education, to consider his representation dated 29.04.1999. This Court, by order dated 28.03.2000 allowed the petition by directing the Deputy Director of Education, to decide the same after giving an opportunity of being heard and till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the services of the petitioner as a “Headmaster” be continued.
It is pointed out that Deputy Director of Education, by his order dated 08.05.2000, rejected the proposal of approval, as the petitioner was not possessing the training qualification of D.Ed. which is requisite qualification of the Primary School Teacher. Petitioner against the order dated 08.05.2000, of rejection of his proposal of approval filed further Writ Petition No.398/2002, before this Court. In respect of this petition, petitioner has not given the correct factual position. According to him, this Writ Petition was filed in the year 2002, but, he stated in the petition that the same was admitted on 28.03.2000 i.e. before filing of the petition. So also, not enclosed any copy of the order of the said petition along with the documents in the writ petition.
Petitioner then submitted that due to rejection of his approval, the President of the Society by his communication dated 20.05.2000, transferred his services from Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada to Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur, as a “Headmaster”, which was an unaided high school. The petitioner started working in that school as a “Headmaster” w.e.f. 20.05.2000.
The petitioner then submitted that while he was working as a “Headmaster” to non-granted school, run by the respondent No.1-Society, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, has granted approval to his services as a “Headmaster” on regular and permanent basis vide his order dated 24.04.2007. The perusal of the said order of approval shows that the approval has been granted as a probationer from 01.06.2000 till completion of the probation period and as a “Headmaster” from 01.06.2005 onwards.
It is submitted by the petitioner that respondent No.1-Society, particularly President, on its own, sent a proposal to the Deputy Director of Education, on 10.01.2013 and requested to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of approval as a “Trained Teacher” as well as “Headmaster”, in the light of Government Resolution dated 11.11.2011. In response to that request, according to the petitioner, the Education Officer (Primary), after considering legal position has granted approval to his services as an “Assistant Teacher” on probation at Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, from 03.07.1997 upto completion of probation period. In the same order approval for period 03.07.1999 to 03.07.2013, approval has been granted on non-grant-aid basis and further from 08.07.2013 to until further order, approval has been granted on grant-in-aid school. As such, in a single order that too at Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, where he was not working, the Education Officer, has granted approval in the matter.
The petitioner submitted that in view of the approval granted by the Education Officer, he has been relieved from Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur and joined at Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, on 25.10.2013. Immediately, after the joining, he has started working there by doing his teaching job till 01.08.2019, without any break. However, in a same breath, he further stated that he was not permitted to sign the muster-roll w.e.f. 16.05.2014.
The Petitioner stated that after granting approval by the Education Officer, on 07.06.2013, the Education Officer, by his order dated 08.11.2013 has rejected the approval on the ground that the petitioner being appointed at Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur, and working in the said school, but this fact was not brought to his notice.
The Petitioner against the order of Education Officer dated 08.11.2013 filed Writ Petition No.6131/2013 before this Court. This Court, initially granted an order of status-quo on 20.11.2013. However, in the said petition, the present respondent No.4 appeared and pointed out the factual position that the petitioner was never appointed at Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada. In view of that factual position, this Court, directed the parties to appear before the Education Officer and the Education Officer was directed to conduct the hearing and decide the entire issues involved in the matter.
The Education Officer accordingly, conducted hearing as per the directions of this Court and passed a detailed order in the matter on 20.06.2014. The Education Officer has specifically recorded the finding that Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, there were total eleven teachers who were working on sanctioned post, including respondent No.4. It is recorded that respondent No.4 was initially appointed as an “Assistant Teacher” from 01.07.1997 and his services were duly approved from 01.07.1997. It is further recorded that since 24.01.2000, respondent No.4 is working as “Headmaster” of the School. On the other hand, the petitioner has been appointed on 01.06.2000 as an “Assistant Teacher” and since 01.06.2005 his services were approved by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, at Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur. It is also recorded that there is a specific resolution of the Management, to appoint present respondent No.4 as a permanent “Headmaster” of Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada. So also, it is clarified that while appointing petitioner as a “Headmaster” of Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, it is nowhere clear form the record that services of respondent No.4 were terminated. Hence, by considering all these factors involved in the matter confirmed the order of rejecting the approval of the petitioner dated 08.11.2013.
In this background, the petitioners approached before the learned Tribunal by filing Appeal No.10/2016. The petitioner in the said appeal, challenged the order passed by the Education Officer, dated 20.06.2014 and oral termination without disclosing the date of termination and seeks direction to allow him to work as a “Headmaster” in Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada and include his name in the salary bills and pay him salary. The petitioner further prayed to restore the order of approval dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Education Officer for granting approval in his favour.
It is pertinent to note that in the Appeal No.10/2016, in terms of the prayers made by the petitioner, it was expected that he should implead the Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, as a necessary party to the proceeding, as he was seeking reinstatement in the said School. But, without any reason, he has not made party to the Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada before the learned Tribunal.
The present respondent No.4 therefore, moved an application for intervention and the same was allowed by the learned Tribunal. The respondent No.4 has pointed out correct factual position before the learned Tribunal. The petitioner has filed his written statement along with relevant documents on record before the learned Tribunal. It is the submission of the respondent No.4 that as per the order of Education Department dated 02.11.1994, the permission to start the school namely Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada was granted from Academic Session 1993-1994. As such, when the school itself was started from the Academic Session 1993-1994, there was no question of appointment of the petitioner in the year 1990 in the School, as claimed by the petitioner. The respondent No.4 pointed out that in the year 1993, as per the records, one Shri R.M. Desai, was holding the post of “Headmaster”. At that time, as the school was not having recognition, the school and the management was required to obtain the permission of the Education Officer, to permit the student to appear for examination in other school. Accordingly, the permission was granted and the students have appeared for examination from other schools i.e. namely Vaishali Upper Primary School, Misal Layout, Nagpur.
The respondent No.4 further pointed out that petitioner was a regular student of B.Ed during the Academic Session 1993-1994 of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (RTMNU) and regular student of MSW, which he has done from Swami Vivekanand College, during the Academic Session 1994-95. In support of these submissions, he has placed on record, the copies of the statement of marks of B.Ed, which was held in Summer of the year 1994 and College Leaving Certificate issued by Swami Vivekanant College of Social Work in favour of the petitioner.
According to respondent No.4, he was appointed in the school namely Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, on 01.07.1993. At that time, illegally the petitioner was shown as a “Headmaster”, though the post was not sanctioned and the school was running on non-grant-aid basis. He further pointed out, which is not denied by the petitioner, the petitioner has tendered his resignation on 26.06.1996 by stating that he has been offered service by one World Vision of India and therefore, he was willing to join the post in that establishment. The said resignation tendered by the petitioner was accepted by the Management. After that the petitioner has handed over the entire record to the respondent No.4 in presence of the President of the Society. The respondent No.4 and the petitioner duly signed the said document as well as the concerned officer of the School.
The respondent No.4 then pointed out that by the Resolution dated 29.06.1996 of the respondent No.1-Society, has unanimously decided to appoint respondent No.4 as a “Headmaster” of Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada and accordingly, the promotion order as “Headmaster” was issued to him on 29.06.1996. The Education Officer (Primary), by his order dated 18.08.1999, has approved his services as an “Assistant Teacher” and by further order dated 29.05.2000 approved as a “Headmaster” of Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada.
The respondent No.4 further pointed out that the World Vision of India, where the petitioner has rendered his services, has issued the communication in favour of respondent No.4 informing thereby, that petitioner has joined their establishment as a Community Development Officer on 01.04.1996 and worked upto 24.11.1997. The respondent No.4 further placed on record the documents pertaining to the sanctioned posts, yearly inspection report, seniority list of the Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, to establish the fact that the petitioner was never appointed in the Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada.
According to respondent No.4, all the sanctioned posts were duly filled-in and therefore, there was no reasons to allow to petitioner to join the post. The respondent No.4 also placed on record the documents of Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur. According to the said documents, it is clear that since Academic Session 1998-1999, the petitioner was working as a “Headmaster” in the said school. The Education Officer, by his order dated 24.04.2007 approved his services as an “Assistant Teacher” from 01.06.2000. However, respondent No.4 also relied upon the documents pertaining to the Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur, i.e. educational information submitted to the Education Officer, yearly inspection report of Academic Session 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and etc., wherein, the name of petitioner was recorded as “Headmaster” of that School.
The respondent No.4 has specifically stated that after granting approval by the Education Officer to the services of the petitioner, initially by order dated 07.06.2013, he has immediately approached to the Education Officer and pointed by his communication dated 24.10.2013 that on the basis of bogus and fabricated document, the approval has been granted by the Education Officer and therefore, on his application, the Education Officer has rejected the approval of the petitioner.
In this background, the learned Tribunal has decided the appeal. The learned Tribunal while deciding the appeal has framed the specific issue which is mandatory as per the judgment of this Court, in the case of St. Ulai High School Vs. Devendraprasad reported in 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 597 (F.B.), has confirmed the decision in Anna Pethe’s case that the learned School Tribunal shall frame the issue while deciding the appeal as to whether the appointment of the employee was made as per Section 5 read with Rule 9 of MEPS Act and Rules. The learned Tribunal by considering the documents produced by respondents and more particularly, by recording the specific findings that the School was recognized by the Education Department on 02.11.1994 whereas, the petitioner is stating that he was appointed on 25.06.1990, which is impossible and therefore, it is difficult to accept that his appointment was made as a “Headmaster” on 25.06.1990 as alleged by the respondent, held that appointment of the petitioner was never made as a “Headmaster” of Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada.
The learned Tribunal further recorded the finding that from the pleadings of the petitioner in appeal memo, there are as much as eight dates of appointment stated by the appellant i.e. 25.06.1990, 01.07.1990, 01.07.1993, 21.06.1993, 25.06.1994, 24.06.1999, 01.07.1999 and 16.06.2013, but, in support of this submission, there is no explanation nor clarification which was his correct date of appointment. So also, by relying upon the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules, it is held that the petitioner failed to establish that his appointment was made by following due procedure of law in the School. Rather the learned Tribunal has recorded the finding that there was absolutely no document placed on record that he was appointed in the School namely Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada by following due procedure of law.
In respect of otherwise termination, which was alleged by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, was also not established as per the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings that present petitioner and the President of the Society were having hand in glove with each other and by suppressing the material information approached to the learned Tribunal. The documents placed on record demonstrate that the petitioner has resigned from Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada on 26.06.1996 and thereafter, he was never in the employment of the same school. The learned Tribunal from para Nos.52 to 62 by referring various documents, reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was never worked in the Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada. Consequently, the issue of otherwise termination was answered in “negative”.
In this background, the petitioner challenge the impugned judgment before this Court. I have heard, both the parties in the matter and upon perusal of the judgment of the learned Tribunal, as well as the reply filed by the parties, it is noticed that the petitioner time and again approached before this Court by filing various petitions. However, in all those petitions, he has made the Management as a respondent, through its President namely Shri Y.A. Raut. In none of the proceedings filed by him, he has not impleaded the School as a necessary party. So also, before the learned Tribunal, though he had prayed for reinstatement at Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, but, the school was never made a party to the proceedings. Hence, it is clear that the President of the Society, was having an undue favour to the petitioner and therefore, having hand in gloves, could succeeded in all the petitions filed before this Court, by obtaining orders to direct the Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner time-to-time.
In my opinion, the President of the Society, who was impleaded as a necessary party in the various proceedings was duty bound to brought correct factual position before this Court. However, since the year 2000 upto 2021, i.e. almost for a period of 21 years, the petitions after petitions came to be filed by the petitioner, but correct factual position was not brought to the notice of this Court by President of the Society and therefore, it has given chance to the petitioner to raise multiple litigation in the matter.
In the present petition, respondent No.4 placed on record, the bunch of documents, which were produced before the learned School Tribunal. Perusal of these documents clarifies the fact that the learned Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings on all those documents. It is clear from documents that the petitioner was never appointed as a “Headmaster” of Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada. The petitioner failed to establish on record by filing any counter documents that he has rendered his service in Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal.
It is pertinent to note that the Education Authorities are the Officers appointed by the State Government for disbursement of grant-in-aid received to them from the State Government. Therefore, these Officers are having a duty to see that any proposal for approval which was received to their Office should be verified diligently and see that the public money should not be disbursed in an illegal manner. Here, from the order of the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, dated 07.06.2013, it is clear that the Officer, has irresponsibly granted approval. The approval which is granted is classic in nature.
In the year 2013, admittedly, the petitioner was working at Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur. However, the Education Officer, has granted approval in favour of the petitioner of Adivasi Academy Upper Primary School, Gorewada, that too from a retrospective effect i.e. from 03.07.1997 as a “Probationer”. From 03.07.1999 to 03.07.2013 on non-granted basis and then from 08.07.2013 upto until further order of grant-in-aid basis. This fact shows that the Education Officer (Primary) are not discharging the public function diligently and without verifying the record of the School, granted approval in illegal manner. In such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Education, was expected to take serious note of this fact. But the Deputy Director of Education, also not taken any action in the matter.
In the present case, it is clear that all these illegal things were going on upto when the respondent No.4 did not brought factual position to the notice of Education Officer by his representation dated 24.10.2013. The Education Officer has waken up from deep slumber on 08.11.2013 and cancelled his order of approval. While passing this order, he has issued the notice to the President of the Society namely Shri Yohan Raut, by alleging that he has hatched a conspiracy with the petitioner, who was working at Roger Stronstad High School, Nagpur and obtained the order by misguiding his Office and therefore, as to why the Police Complaint should not be lodged against him. But, again, surprisingly no such action was taken in the matter.
It was the duty of the Education Department that when the Writ Petition No.6131/2013 was filed before this Court by petitioner to brought to the notice of this Court the abovesaid factual aspects. But it seems that only the respondent No.4 has bought this fact to the notice of this Court and therefore, matter was remanded back to the Education Officer to consider the controversy.
The Education Officer, then decided the controversy by his order dated 20.06.2014. After considering all these material aspects, it was expected from his side that some action should have been proposed against the person who have manipulated the record of Education Officer and see that on whose behalf all these illegal things took place in the Education Department, but, again no such action or decision taken in the matter by the Education Officer.
The stand of the President of the Society in the present matter is also required to be noted down. The respondent No.1-President namely Mr. Yohan Raut, before the learned School Tribunal, supported the petitioner but in the present petition, filed an independent affidavit on record dated 27.07.2026, stating that the petitioner has misused the blank papers on which he has given his signatures to him in the capacity of “Headmaster” of the School. First time he stated before this Court that there were no Resolutions passed in the matter in favour of the petitioner as alleged by him in the petition. He further stated that the petitioner has not permitted him to engage a lawyer either before this Court or before the learned Tribunal. According to him, when he realized that the signature and stamp were misused by the petitioner, therefore, he has filed his independent affidavit.
In my opinion the respondent No.1 could have taken the same stand before the learned Tribunal. But, surprisingly before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 has engaged his counsel who supported the petitioner by stating that appointment of the petitioner was made as “Headmaster” of School by following the due procedure of law. Respondent No.1 being President of the Society, is not expected to take a dual stand in such serious matters. He is holding a responsible post and therefore, should be vigilant and see that the School being a Private School run by the Trust, he should make a responsible statement before the Competent Court of law.
The President or the Secretary of the Trust being working on behalf of the Trust as its representative should be the vigilant person. But, here in this case, it is clear that Management has never looked into the matters which were filed by the petitioner before this Court. As such, the petitioner has filed multiple petitions before this Court and also dare to file the frivolous appeal before the learned Tribunal. Hence, in the present case, the Management is also equally liable for supporting such person to file such petition. In the facts and circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.
The petitioner is hereby, directed to pay the costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and respondent No.1-President of the Trust namely Shri Y.A. Raut, shall pay the costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) in the ‘Public Welfare Account’, which is directed to be opened by an Order dated 12.01.2026, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (SMPIL) No.01/2021. The details of which can be obtained from the Registrar (Judicial), Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with above-said terms. No order as to costs.