AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner seeks recognition and approval of his
service put in as Assistant Teacher with respondent nos. 2 & 3 at
least from the date on which the respondent no.3 school started
receiving grant-in-aid.
Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, learned Advocate for petitioner, submits
that others who were recruited after petitioner have been given
approval from 26.6.1997 and similar treatment has not been given to
him only because his proposal for consideration was submitted
belatedly.
He states that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and
was fully eligible in 1992 when he joined the employment with
respondent no.3. He worked from 8.9.1992 onwards and was
terminated on 4.6.1996. Said termination was assailed before School
Tribunal on 17.6.1996. Matter was then compromised and petitioner
was reinstated on 28.7.1996. However, as no order was issued,
appeal before School Tribunal was kept pending. As case was not
withdrawn, petitioner was again terminated on 6.5.1998. Petitioner,
therefore, withdrew appeal on 26.6.1998 and was reinstated on
18.8.1998.
Respondent no.1 has on 18.3.2000 refused approval to
the employment of petitioner on the ground that no previous
permission before recruiting petitioner was obtained from it, the
appointment was made at the fag end of academic year and there
was backlog of Scheduled Tribe and VJ-NT. He states that Appeal
STN. 188/96 was pending for long, service rendered before filing
thereof and its withdrawal is, therefore, lost sight of. The others who
have been given approval have also been recruited similarly and
hence, reasons given show total non-application of mind. According
to him, in this situation, petitioner being seniormost must be given due
credit and advantage of his past service and the arrears should also
be made over to him.
Mr. P.D. Meghe, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 2 &
3, submitted that proposal for seeking approval to employment of
petitioner could be submitted only on 17.3.1999 after appeal filed
before School Tribunal was disposed of. He points out that as per
interim orders passed by this Court on 6.7.2004, petitioner has been
given provisional approval from 2004 and on the basis of that
approval petitioner is continuing even today.
Learned A.G.P. is strongly opposing the petition. He
submits that the school started receiving grant in 1997 and at that
juncture only three names were communicated to the Department.
Entitlement of those three persons was looked into and approval was
given to those three persons as Assistant Teachers from 26.6.1997
for a period of three years. Management was then asked to fill in
remaining posts through S.T. & N.T. Had the claim of petitioner or its
superiority been pointed out to Department before 31.1.1998, the
situation would have been different. He submits that public revenue
cannot be made to suffer for any fault on part of management or
petitioner and the petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any relief.
Papers placed on record before us prima facie show that
the petitioner did approach School Tribunal under Section 9 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 on 17.6.1996. Events thereafter may be in
dispute or the Education Department may not be fully aware of
relevant developments but this Court has on 6.7.2004 directed
respondent no.1 to grant provisional approval to employment of
petitioner and that approval has been accordingly granted. Thus,
from 2004 till today, petitioner is working with approval with
respondent nos. 2 & 3. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 are not opposing the
petition. Not only this, but respondent no.1 has not pointed out any
adverse impact on roster application with respondent nos. 2 & 3
because of interim orders of this Court.
The fact that Education Department got knowledge of
employment of petitioner only through proposal dated 17.3.1999 is
not in dispute. Before that, the Department did grant approval to
employment of Shri B.H. Patil, Shri V.H. Meshram and Shri K.H.
Dewale on 31.3.1998. The approval is given from 26.6.1997 for a
period of two years. These persons are not party before this Court.
Correctness of case of petitioner qua these three persons, therefore,
cannot be examined here. Had management then pointed out the
employment of petitioner or then pending appeal before the School
Tribunal, one of them may not have been approved as a reserved
category candidate. Again this is hypothetical situation as full data is
not available for our perusal. But then in approval letter dated
31.3.1998 direction given to management is to fill in remaining post of
teacher through S.T. and N.T. category. Thus, there was no scope
for one more S.C. candidate at least at that juncture.
On the basis of material available with them,
Superintendent, Secondary Education, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur
has filed reply affidavit before this Court on 25.6.2004 and pointed out
that in the light of these facts management did not follow the
necessary procedure while appointing petitioner and his appointment,
therefore, is illegal. On the basis of documents looked into by us, this
assertion by Department cannot be said to be unjustified.
The management has in submissions filed before this
Court on 15.6.2004 pointed out that information of pending appeal
before School Tribunal was furnished to Education Department. They
also claim that proposal of petitioner was also submitted for approval
along with others at that time but then on 31.3.1998 respondent no.1
granted approval to appointment of three teachers only except
present petitioner.
In this situation, taking overall view of the matter, we find
that interest of justice can be met with by directing respondent no.1 to
verify the records and to find out whether before 31.3.1998 any
proposal for grant of approval to employment of petitioner was
received by it. It shall also verify records of case of School Tribunal
Appeal No. 188/96 and then take suitable decision on the proposal for
grant of approval submitted on 17.3.1999 by respondent nos. 2 & 3.
Only to enable respondent no.1 to undertake this exercise, we quash
and set aside the order of respondent no.1 dated 18.3.2000 refusing
approval to the employment of petitioner and restore letter dated
17.3.1999 sent by respondent nos. 2 & 3 back to his file. Respondent
no.1 shall hear petitioner, respondent nos. 2 & 3 and take suitable
decision upon it within further period of four months.
Needless to mention that even if the decision of
respondent no.1 thereafter be adverse to petitioner, the advantage of
interim order dated 6.7.2004 conferred upon petitioner shall not be
removed. The petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. No
costs.