AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Both these Petitions are directed against the order dated 28.03.2024, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’), partly allowing Appeal No.31/2022 and Appeal No.32/2022, which were filed by Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.9788/2024 and Writ Petition No.9790/2024, respectively. The Petitioners and Respondents in both the Petitions are common. Common submissions are made by both sides, as the factual and legal aspects are common in both the Petitions. Therefore, in this backdrop, these Petitions are decided by this common Judgment.
Petitioner No.1 is the Secretary of Dnyanvikas Shikshan Sanstha Kapsi (Bk), Taluka - Loha, District - Nanded and Petitioner No.2 is the Headmaster of the Primary School run by the said Sanstha. Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions filed the above-referred Appeals before the learned Tribunal contending that, in the academic year 2002 – 2003, the strength of students of Petitioner No.2 – School was more than 500. As per the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees Of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act and Rules’) and Government policy, one (01) post of Peon and one (01) post of Clerk is admissible on the establishment of the said School, if the strength of the students was 500 or more. The said two (02) posts were sanctioned by Respondent No.2 – Education Officer. The Petitioners applied to the Respondent No.2 – Education Officer for permission to fill up the said posts. The Respondent No.2 – Education Officer granted permission to fill up the said posts by following due procedure. The Petitioner No.1 issued an advertisement in a daily newspaper to fill up the said posts. The Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions applied for the respective posts, i.e. Peon and Clerk, since they possessed the requisite qualifications. The Petitioners selected and appointed Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions to the posts of Peon and Clerk, respectively, by order dated 10.06.2002 on probation for a period of two (02) years as per Section 5(1) of the said Act and Rules.
A proposal was forwarded to Respondent No.2 – Education Officer for granting approval to the aforesaid appointment of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions. The Respondent No.2 granted the approval, and thereafter cancelled the same. The Respondent No.2, vide letter of 2009, forwarded the proposal to the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Deputy Director’) for getting sanction to the posts of Peon and Clerk. The names of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were shown in the said proposal. The Deputy Director verified the proposal and vide letter dated 07.12.2009, forwarded the same to the Director of Education (Primary) for further action. The proposal was again verified by the Director of Education (Primary) and considering the strength of student, which was more than 500, forwarded the proposal to the State Government for approval vide communication dated 28.06.2012. The Respondent No.2 – Education Officer, vide order dated 01.01.2014, granted the approval to the services of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions with effect from 15.06.2012. As the approval was cancelled, the same was challenged by Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions by filing Writ Petition No.3286/2015, which was disposed off with directions to decide the approval on merit. As the directions were not complied by the Respondent No.2 – Education Officer, Contempt Petition No.543/2018 came to be filed, which was disposed off on 06.06.2019. The Respondent No.2 – Education Officer issued the order dated 05.12.2018 and confirmed the earlier order dated 18.02.2014 cancelling the approval.
On 02.05.2019, Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were restrained from signing the muster of the School and they were also restrained from coming to the establishment of Petitioner No.2 – School. They had signed the muster up to 30.04.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, they preferred the above-referred Appeals before the learned Tribunal with prayers to quash and set aside the otherwise termination, with directions to the Petitioners to reinstate them in the services with continuity of service, pay full back wages and all other consequential service benefits, and further to direct the Petitioners to send a fresh proposal for their approval by mentioning the date of appointment as 10.06.2002 and to pay salary from that date till the date of otherwise termination.
The Petitioners filed their reply to the said Appeals contending that, the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions suppressed the material facts. They denied that, the strength of students in the academic year 2002 – 2003 of Petitioner No.2 – School was more than 500. It was not disputed that, the approval to Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions was granted and subsequently cancelled. It was denied that, the posts were sanctioned. It was denied that, the appointment of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions was by following due procedure. It was denied that, there was sanctioned posts at the particular time. The otherwise termination was denied. It was contended that, the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were given chance to discharge the duty on their request, however the posts were not sanctioned. The non-teaching posts were not approved by the Authority. The Government, vide Circular dated 01.04.2011, directed that, in case of the student strength more than 500, one post of Peon and one post of Clerk was admissible. Only three (03) posts were available in the Nanded District. The Respondent No.2 – Education Officer granted the approval on 01.01.2014 on temporary basis for Rs.2000/- per month. However, on 18.02.2014, the said approval was cancelled on the basis of the Government Resolutions and Circular. The filing of the aforesaid Writ Petition and the order therein was not disputed. As per the School record, the strength of students were below 500 from the academic years 2014 – 2015 to 2019 – 2020. Whatever work Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions discharged, they were paid for the same. The Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions had no right to claim the reliefs prayed in the appeal memo, and prayed for dismissal of the Appeals.
The Respondent No.2 – Education Officer filed reply contending that, Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were appointed in Petitioner No.2 – School on 10.06.2002 on the posts of Peon and Clerk, respectively. The posts were sanctioned by order dated 01.04.2014 for a period of three (03) years from 15.06.2012 to 14.06.2015. By Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012, there was a ban on recruitment. The appointments of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were not prior to 02.05.2012, and therefore the approval, which was granted, came to be cancelled. The said posts of Peon and Clerk were allowed, if the strength of student was more than 500. As per the rules, one (01) post of Peon and one (01) post of Clerk was sanctioned on the establishment of Petitioner No.2 – School; however, the appointments were not as per Government Resolutions dated 02.05.2012 and 06.09.2012. As per the directions of the High Court in the said Writ Petition No.3286/2015, hearing was afforded to the parties and earlier decision dated 01.01.2002 was confirmed.
The learned Tribunal framed the points for consideration on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Considering the material on record and after hearing all the sides, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment and allowed both the Appeals by setting aside the otherwise termination order dated 02.05.2019 and directed the Petitioners to reinstate Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions on the posts of Peon and Clerk, respectively with continuity of service and full back wages.
Heard the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions and the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
[A] It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners that, in the case of student strength below 500, no posts of Peon and Clerk were permissible as per the relevant Government Resolutions. Though earlier the approval to Respondent No.1 in both Petitions was granted, the same came to be cancelled. The cancellation of approval was challenged before this Court, and the Petition was disposed off with directions. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the said Writ Petition, hearing was fixed by Respondent No.2 – Education Officer and by order dated 15.12.2018, the earlier rejection of approval was maintained. No challenge was raised to the said order passed by Respondent No.2 – Education Officer. Undisputedly, the appointments of Respondent No.1 in both Petition were on a temporary basis. The posts of Peon and Clerk were not in existence. No advertisement was issued for the appointments, as no strength of 500 was existing with Petitioner No.2 – School. The learned Tribunal committed an error, as is seen from the observation in Paragraph No.18, by observing that, the question of approval was regarding the grant. The approval had nothing to do with the grant. The question was the availability of student strength as per the Government Resolution. When there were no sanctioned posts, there is no question of application of the provisions of the said Act and Rules. The learned Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned Judgment, though it shows that, the learned Tribunal was aware of the legal position that, the availability of sanctioned posts was a must. He submits that, the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and the Petitions be allowed. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following Judgments :
[a] Priyadarshini Education Trust and Others Vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano d/o Abdul Rasheed and Others; 2007 (6) Mh.L.J 667;
[b] Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of M.P. and Others; 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. 357;
[c] Jaimala Bhaurao Ramteke Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and Others ; 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 333;
[d] Prakash Babarao Shingane Vs. Janta Education Society, Chausala and Others ; 2022 (1) Mh.L.J. 243;
[e] Vilas Laxman Gavai Vs. Dnyandeo Uttamrao Dhandar and Ors. ; 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 812;
[f] State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Chandreshwar Pathak; AIR 2014 SC 3752 ;
[g] State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Ku. Sandhya Tomar and Anr. ; 2013 (1) All MR 485 (S.C.) ;
[h] Rajendra Vitthalrao Kamble Vs. Government of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2012 (4) Mh.L.J. 505;
[i] Mohd. Ashif and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others; (2010) 5 SCC 475 ;
[j] Chandramani Devraj Tiwari Vs. Secretary Smt. R. B. Tiwari Sanskrutik Kendra and Ors.; 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 274;
[B] It is submitted by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 – Employees that, Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions came to be appointed in June – 2002 and were orally terminated in May – 2019. There is no provision in the said Act for the minimum strength of students so as to make the appointments for the posts of Peon and Clerk. He tendered across the bar copies of the appointment orders to submit that, the same were issued under the format prescribed under Rule 9(5) of the said Rules. The document on record goes to show that, the Petitioners – Institution had issued the advertisement to fill up the posts of Peon and Clerk, and Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were appointed after following due process. The document on record goes to show that, Petitioner No.2 – Headmaster had written to Respondent No.2 – Education Officer, giving the necessary details and recommending the names of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions for approval. The proposal was referred to the Government by the Director of Education for approval to the posts of Peon and Clerk in view of strength of student more than 500. He further submitted that, Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were orally terminated, which was contrary to the said Act and Rules. No termination can happen without following due procedure of law. The reply filed by the Petitioners before the learned Tribunal was contrary to their own Resolution. The communication on record goes to show that, there were sanctioned posts of Peon and Clerk on the date of oral termination, and the names of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were shown in the seniority list. The learned Tribunal considered the Appeals on the basis of material available on record and rightly passed the impugned Judgment and order and no interference was called for in the same, and therefore the Petitions be dismissed. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following Judgments :
[a] Balasaheb Ramchandra Burke and Others Vs. President, Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha and Others ; 2016 (3) Bom. C.R. 197 ;
[b] Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale Vs. Chairman, Kai Ramchandra Patil Shikshan Sanstha, Kunikonur and Others ; 2016 DGLS (Bom.) 468 ;
[c] Friends Social Circle and Another Vs. Presiding Officer and Others; 2009 (6) Bom. C. R. 192 ;
[d] Raver Taluka Urdu Education Society and Another Vs. Mohammad Abdul Rauf Wahab and Another ; 2017 DGLS (Bom.) 360 ;
[e] St. Ulai High School, through its Principal & Anr. Vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh & Anr.; 2007 (1) Bom. C. R. 540 ;
[C] It is submitted by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 that, Respondent No.2 – Education Officer has acted within the parameters of the Government Resolutions / Rules.
The Judgments cited by both the sides are considered below :
[i] In Priyadarshini Education Trust (supra), the Respondent No.1 therein was appointed as the teacher by the appellant, which was only for one academic year and on temporary basis and she was further appointed on temporary basis for certain academic years. As there was unrest amongst the staff due to absence of punctuality in payment of salary, there was an enblock oral termination of 13 staff members. 11 staff members approached the School Tribunal and their Appeal came to be dismissed. The provisions of the MEPS and the Judgments were considered and it was observed that, from the contents of the Petition, it was found that, there was no service record prior to 1992 and the appointment order was produced by the Petitioner – Teacher. The Teacher having approached the Court, initial burden of proof lies on the Petitioner. The Teacher was not being able to satisfy that, she was appointed by following due process of selection. The said Act and Rules were framed for the purpose of regulating the recruitment in the private schools in the State. “Duly appointment, in the manner prescribed” would be an appointment of a person who is eligible for appointment, who is selected by due process of selection and who is appointed on a permanent vacant post.
[ii] In Vibhuti Shankar Pandey (supra), ‘the employee therein was appointed as the Supervisor on daily rate basis, under a project and he sought regularization on the post of Supervisor/Time Keeper. The employee therein was never appointed against any post and his appointment was never made by the competent authority and there were no posts available at the time for regularization and he set his claim for regularization as persons who were junior to him as daily wagers were regularized. It was observed that, the initial appointment must be done by the Competent Authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working. It was held that, the employee had no case for regularisation.’
[iii] In Jaimala Bhaurao Ramteke (supra), ‘the Petitioner therein was working as the Teacher in the School run by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 after appointment as the Assistant Teacher, and her name was incorporated in the muster-roll. It was the contention that, after completion of probation period successfully, her services became permanent and therefore she could not be removed without due inquiry’. It was observed that, the procedure provided for appointment of a Teacher has to be followed scrupulously, otherwise such appointments cannot be said to be legal. The issue as to whether the appointment is proper or not, has to be considered by the School Tribunal while considering the appeal of the Petitioner. It is further observed that, ‘there was no material on record to suggest that, all the relevant rules and provisions were followed before the appointment of the petitioner and the Education Officer had granted permission to recruit the employee in the permanent vacancy as required under Section 5 of the MEPS. Mere approval to the appointment of the petitioner would not go to resolve the irregularity/illegality committed by the management in the appointment of the petitioner. The Petitioner was continued in the employment by virtue of interim order of the School Tribunal. The Petition was dismissed.’
[iv] In Prakash Babarao Shingane (supra), ‘the Appellant was appointed as the Teacher. The Deputy Director of Education granted approval to his appointment from certain date. It was the Teachers’ case that, the order of approval was fabricated as his date of appointment was different than the one. There was no mention or reference of the approval to the appointment by the School Committee, the Secretary of the School Committee or the Principal. The order was signed by the President’. It was further observed that, ‘simply because of signature of the Principal on the order, it cannot be inferred that required procedure and compliance of law had gone into before granting approval to the appointment. The appointment order, if read in juxtaposition with the earlier three orders of appointment and the fact that the mandatory procedure required under Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act and Rule 9 of the M.E.P.S. Rules was not followed and adhered to, has to be held as illegal appointment order’.
[v] In Vilas Laxman Gavai (supra), ‘the Petitioner therein was appointed on the post of Peon. Approval was granted to the appointment. As the post of Laboratory Attendant was vacant, respondent no.1 was appointed on the said post. It was the Petitioners contention that, the post of Laboratory Attendant was filled in without any advertisement / interviews and without following the procedure. The Petitioner made representation to the management and requested for his appointment to the post of Laboratory Attendant. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Laboratory Attendant and Education Officer granted approval to the said post. Respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal against his otherwise termination which was allowed’. It was observed that, ‘In view of the decision in Rayat Shikshan Sanstha and another .vs. Yeshwant Dattatraya Shinde [2009 (6) Mh.L.J.476] burden lies on respondent no.1 to show that his appointment was made on a clear and permanent post. There was nothing on record to suggest that respondent no.1 was working on a clear and permanent vacant post. In the absence of pleadings and evidence in respect of compliance of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the MEPS, the appointment of respondent no.1 could not be treated as on probation for a period of two years in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 5 of the MEPS’. As Respondent No.1 therein failed to establish his case before the Tribunal, the order of the learned Tribunal holding that, the appointment was on a clear and sanctioned post was set aside.
[vi] In Chandreshwar Pathak (supra), it was observed that, the Respondent was temporarily appointed to the post of Constable with the stipulation that his service could be terminated without assigning any reason or show cause. In the year 2000, the High Court of Patna considered the issue of backdoor appointments made in the police department in another case which led to a direction by the Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar to review irregular appointments and to remove such appointees from service. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent-writ petitioner asking him why his appointment should not be cancelled and since no valid reason was shown in reply, order of terminating the services of the respondent was passed. The termination was challenged in the Writ Petition which came to be dismissed. On Appeal the termination was held invalid. The State challenged the same’ and it was observed that, ‘it is a settled legal position that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the constitutional requirement was to be fulfilled. It was held that, in the absence of any advertisement or selection process, the appointment of the respondent was not protected and could be validly terminated’.
[vii] In Ku. Sandhya Tomar (supra), it was observed that, the learned Single Judge quashed the advertisement inviting the applications for appointment on the post of Project Director. Initial appointment of respondent no.1 was not made on the basis of advertisement in any newspaper whatsoever.’ It was further observed that, ‘it is a settled legal proposition that considering the candidature of persons by mere calling of names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India’.
[viii] In Rajendra Vitthalrao Kamble (supra), it was observed that, the challenge was to the order by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The applicants before the Tribunal were appointed as Legal Advisors. Their appointments came to an end on expiry of the contractual period. They filed the Application before the learned Tribunal and their prayer for regularization of appointment was not granted. Thus, they filed the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was dismissed with the observation that, a direction for regularization or permanent continuance of an ad hoc appointee cannot be issued unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme’.
[ix] In Mohd. Ashif (supra), it is observed that, the Appellants were initially engaged as Voluntary Health Workers on payment of monthly honorarium and within a period of five months, they were absorbed as Primary Health Workers and their appointments continued for nearly 15 years and then their services were terminated because their promotion/absorption as Primary Health Workers was found to be in breach of relevant circulars. The Single Judge of the High Court held the termination as illegal, but the Division Bench reversed the decision of the Single Judge Bench. The Appeal filed against decision of the Division Bench came to be dismissed by observing that, the appointments as Primary Health Workers were totally illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Chief Medical Officer who had made the appointments was not vested with the power to do so.
[x] In Chandramani Devraj Tiwari (supra), the Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the order of the Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition of the employee concerned, whereby the order passed by the School Tribunal dismissing the employees Appeal was confirmed. The Appellant therein was appointed as Assistant Teacher in government aided school in July 1995 on permanent and clear vacancy. However, he was not issued any appointment letter at the time of his appointment. He worked till his termination which took place in October – 1999. He filed the Appeal before the Tribunal.’ It was further observed that, ‘to claim benefits of deemed permanency under Section 5(2) of the said Act, it was necessary to prove before the learned Presiding Officer that the Appellant was duly selected in the manner prescribed and there was nothing on record before the learned Presiding Officer to show that there was an advertisement inviting applications to which the petitioner had responded and he was subjected to selection process by competition amongst all eligible and desirous candidates. Assuming for the sake of argument that some illegality was committed by mutual consent, that could not in itself confer any legal sanction to the appointment of the appellant.
[xi] In Friends Social Circle and Another (supra), it was observed that, the appointment of Respondent No.2 therein was terminated because Education Officer had withdrawn the approval. That was held to be no ground for revocation of an appointment. It was held to be no ground to terminate the service, which otherwise cannot be terminated. Respondent No.2 therein was appointed on 30.03.1998 on probation for a period of two years and the appointment was even approved by the Education Officer, which was later on withdrawn due to the pendency of Petition. The letter of termination was issued. On the date of issuing termination order, Respondent No.2 therein had completed seven years of service and he became a deemed permanent employee. It is further observed that, his service could not be terminated without holding a valid enquiry. As no enquiry was held in the matter, the services were held to be wrongly terminated.
[xii] In Raver Taluka Urdu Education Society (supra), it was the contention of the Petitioner – Management that, though Respondent No.1 therein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and had worked for three years, there was no workload at all and there was no vacant post on which he was appointed and his proposal for approval sent by the management was rejected by the Education Officer. Considering the facts of the case, it was observed that, it was obvious that, the Petitioner / Management had not taken any stand while terminating the service of Respondent No. 1 therein and he was purely driven out by the Management and was orally informed that, he stands terminated. Such oral termination, per se was non existent in the eyes of law. The oral termination would necessarily amount to an illegal termination since neither the Management issued the termination order, nor posted the reasons for terminating an employee. Even if an appointment of an employee may be illegal or irregular, it does not give the Management / Employer a right to resort to illegal termination. It was observed that, there can be no parity in illegality so as to hold that, every illegal / irregular appointment by the Management can be met with an illegal termination.
[xiii] In Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale (supra), the Appeal filed by the Teacher was dismissed by the School Tribunal. It was observed that, the order passed by the Education Officer indicated that, the approval to the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of the Assistant Teacher was not granted merely on the ground that the Petitioner did not have qualification of D.Ed. and thus could not have been considered as a trained teacher. There was no dispute that the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 therein, thereby terminating the services of the Petitioner was only on the ground that the Education Officer had not approved the appointment of the Petitioner. It was observed that, there was no provision in the said Act and Rules for termination of services of the Teacher on the ground that approval was not granted by the Education Officer, and the Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order refusing to grant approval to the appointment.
[xiv] In Balasaheb Ramchandra Burke (supra), the Petitioners – Assistant Teachers were orally terminated after more than 12 years of service on the ground that, the appointment was irregular. No explanation was given by the Respondents – Management as to continuance of Teachers for such a long period when their appointment was irregular. It was held that, the Management cannot be given benefit of wrong committed by themselves. The Management was estopped from justifying termination on the basis of irregular appointment and termination of the Petitioner was held illegal.
[xv] In St. Ulai High School, Through Its Principal (supra), the point for consideration before the Full Bench was whether a suit was maintainable in respect of matters set out in Section 9 of the said Act and Rules. It was held that, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was impliedly barred for the matters covered under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act. It was held that, neither the said Act, nor the said Rules mandate the grant of approval by the Education Officer as a condition precedent to a valid order of appointment. The Requirement of approval which relates to the disbursal of grant in aid is a matter between the Management and the State and want of approval will not invalidate an Order of appointment.
Coming to the case at hand, it is the case of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions that, they were duly appointed on the posts of Peon and Clerk by Petitioner No.1 in Petitioner No.2 – School. The said contention of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions is denied by the Petitioners. Undisputedly, pursuant to the proposal sent by the Petitioners to Respondent No.2 – Education Officer seeking approval to the appointments of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions, the approval was granted to their appointments by Respondent No.2 – Education Officer by communication dated 01.01.2014. However, the same was cancelled by communication dated 18.02.2014 for the reason that, the selection procedure was not prior to the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2023 and there was a ban on recruitment pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012. Undisputedly, the said cancellation of approval was maintained by Respondent No.2 – Education Officer after the initial order was set aside by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, with directions to consider the approval in accordance with law. Be that as it may.
The averments in the Written Statement filed by the Petitioners in Appeal No.32/2022 before the learned Tribunal shows that, it was contended that, Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were given chance to discharge their duties in Petitioner No.2 – School as per their requests, though the posts were not sanctioned by the Authorities. Undisputedly, the appointment orders which were issued by Petitioner No.1 in favour of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were in the format prescribed under ‘Schedule – D’ of the said Rules. A copy of Resolution dated 04.10.2013, below Exhibit – R-1 at Page No.119, enclosed with the reply affidavit of Respondent No.1 in both Petitions, clearly speak that, their appointments were made by Petitioner No.1 pursuant to a paper publication and on merits. Thus, the contention that, the appointments of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were not as per rules and they were given chance to work as per their request, falls down. Undisputedly, the appointment order as referred above is dated 10.06.2002. The otherwise termination of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions is dated 02.05.2019. This goes to show that, Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions rendered their services for a period of more than sixteen (16) years. Considering the length of service, the observations by the learned Tribunal that, the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions got the status as deemed permanency by virtue of Section 5(2) of the said Act cannot be faulted. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the Petitioners that, Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were on temporary basis has not merits. Undisputedly, the services of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions are not terminated on the ground of refusal of approval to the appointments by Respondent No.2 – Education Officer. Also, the termination of their services is not the result of prior inquiry as per rules. Thus, the otherwise termination of their services cannot sustain in the eye of law.
The observations in the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal goes to show that, the names of Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were included in the seniority list and it is further observed that, as per Exhibit – 3 / 9, Petitioner No.2 – Headmaster had submitted information to Respondent No.2 – Education Officer showing the student strength of Petitioner NO.2 – School from 2002 – 2014 as above 500. Though the contention on behalf of the Petitioners that, the approval to the appointments has nothing to do with the grant is considered, all the aforesaid aspects which go to the root of the issue, cannot be ignored. The learned Tribunal observed in the impugned Judgment that, if the Management has appointed the Employees, it is their responsibility to pay the salary to the appointed Employees. The observations made by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order are based on the documents, which were made available on record. The learned Tribunal set aside the otherwise termination order dated 02.05.2019 on the ground that, the same was not in consonance with the provisions of the said Act and Rules. It cannot be said that, the learned Tribunal committed any illegality in passing the impugned Judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no benefit can be derived by the Petitioners from the aforesaid Judgments relied by them. In the light of the above discussed aspects of the matter, no case exists for interference in the impugned Judgment and order setting aside the otherwise termination of the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
[I] The Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
[II] Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.