Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1592 (BOM)

Sanjay s/o Ramrao Folane v. Presiding Officer

2009-11-25

VASANTI A.NAIK

body2009
Judgment : Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 26.3.2002, partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner and holding that the petitioner is not liable to be reinstated and was entitled to salary from 31.3.1997 till 26.3.2002. The petitioner has challenged the order so far it dismisses the appeal for reinstatement in service. 2. The petitioner had filed the appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act 1977. It was the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 8.3.1996 and continued to work till his services were terminated by communication dated 31.3.1997. It was the case of the petitioner that the management was not empowered to terminate the services of the petitioner as there was non-compliance of the provisions of rule 28(1) of the Rules of 1981. The petitioner pleaded that the services of the petitioner could not be have been terminated merely because the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner was subsequently cancelled by the Education Officer. 3. The management filed the reply and denied the case of the petitioner. It was the case of the management that the petitioner was not a trained graduate and therefore, the Education Officer had rightly cancelled the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher. The management pleaded that the appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act 1977. It was pleaded that the approval wrongly granted was rightly withdrawn at a subsequent stage and hence the petitioner's services were terminated. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati by the impugned judgment dated 26.3.2002 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The judgment dated 26.3.2002 is impugned in the instant petition. 4. Shri P.B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents ought to have permitted the petitioner to undergo the training qualification after the appointment as Assistant Teacher. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the government circular dated 5.11.1997 to substantiate his submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was non compliance of the provisions of rule 28. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the government circular dated 5.11.1997 to substantiate his submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was non compliance of the provisions of rule 28. 5. Shri A.M.Deshpande, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 4 and Shri Lakhe, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 and 3 supported the order passed by the School Tribunal and sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order along with the appeal memo and the reply filed thereto. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the School Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, so far as the petitioner sought his reinstatement in service. The services of the petitioner were rightly terminated by respondents no.2 and 3 as they were subject to grant of approval by the Education Officer and the Education Officer had cancelled the approval granted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was an untrained teacher. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an untrained teacher on the date of appointment and also on the date of his termination. It was not the case of the petitioner in the appeal memo that he had applied to the management for permission to undergo training qualification and the same was either granted or refused. The petitioner could not have claimed the post of Assistant Teacher being untrained graduate. Tribunal therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, so far as the reinstatement of the petitioner is concerned, by the impugned judgment dated 26.3.2002. The judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, so as to interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ petition therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.