Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1487 (BOM)

Geeta w/o Mohan Khandwekar v. Principal, Ramnagar Bharat Vidyalaya

2010-10-07

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard Shri Parchure with Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for respondent No. 4. Nobody had appeared for respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. management. 2. In this petition filed under Articles of 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the challenge is to the judgment dated 28.10.1998 delivered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. STN/66 of 1995 upholding the order of termination dated 29.03.1995 issued by the management terminating services of present petitioner from 30.04.1995. 3. Theshort contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is there was an advertisement in 198990 and as the petitioner fulfilled qualifications prescribed therein, she applied and was duly selected. She was accordingly appointed initially for Session 1989-90 and continued till 1994-95. The learned counsel states that in service book, the appointment has been shown as appointment on probation. However, as approval was given from year to year basis, the management has also issued some orders on year to year basis. The Deputy Director of Education on 15.03.1995 communicated to the management that approval in her case was being extended till 30.04.1995 as a special case. Because of this communication, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner challenged that termination and during pendency of appeal before the School Tribunal, because of interim stay, she continued to serve. After School Tribunal dismissed her appeal, this Court again protected her service on 16.11.1998 and, therefore, the petitioner is in service even today. The learned counsel has pointed out that thus the petitioner has put in more than 20 years of service and very short span is left till her superannuation. The learned counsel does not dispute that Schedule B of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Rules) required the petitioner to possess B.Sc. Degree in Home Science in first division and the petitioner holds it in second division. However, by inviting attention to Schedule C, Part VI, dealing with Technical group, the learned counsel has pointed out that in Food Technology group, for Full Time Teacher, two separate pay-scales are prescribed. Pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 is prescribed for those who are “Adequately qualified” while pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 is prescribed for those who are “Inadequately qualified”. However, by inviting attention to Schedule C, Part VI, dealing with Technical group, the learned counsel has pointed out that in Food Technology group, for Full Time Teacher, two separate pay-scales are prescribed. Pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 is prescribed for those who are “Adequately qualified” while pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 is prescribed for those who are “Inadequately qualified”. Attention is invited to reply filed by the Deputy Director of Education before the School Tribunal to urge that there the Deputy Director of Education has stated that approval was given to services of the petitioner under relaxation and in pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 i.e. applicable to Inadequately qualified candidates. The learned counsel, therefore, argues that reason given by the School Tribunal for termination is wholly unsustainable and order of termination is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Shri Joshi, learned AGP for respondent No. 4 has, on the other hand, stated that there is no order of relaxation as such placed on record and the view taken by the School Tribunal, calls for no interference. 5. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the paper. The fact that the petitioner is not holding B.Sc. Home Science qualification in first division is admitted. Thus, the question is whether the prescription of two separate pay-scales in Food Technology group in Schedule C to MEPS Rules has the effect of relaxing said qualification. The qualifications for appointment are prescribed in Schedule B and in said Schedule there is no provision for relaxation in this respect. The Schedule C deals with pay scales and in part VI, the scales of pay of Teachers in Junior College units attached to Secondary School or Colleges is given. Below it in Technical group, the Food Technology group separately appears. In said group two pay scales are prescribed for Full Time Teachers depending upon whether they are Adequately qualified or Inadequately qualified. It is apparent that Adequately qualified has got reference to qualifications prescribed in Schedule B and hence a teacher possessing B.Sc. Degree in first division is entitled to pay-scale of Rs.20003-2000. The pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 prescribed for Inadequately qualified candidates and applied to the petitioner by Deputy Director of Education, therefore, by no stretch can be construed to mean that the qualification prescribed in Schedule B has been relaxed and even a candidate possessing B.Sc. Degree in first division is entitled to pay-scale of Rs.20003-2000. The pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 prescribed for Inadequately qualified candidates and applied to the petitioner by Deputy Director of Education, therefore, by no stretch can be construed to mean that the qualification prescribed in Schedule B has been relaxed and even a candidate possessing B.Sc. qualification in second division can be appointed Full Time teacher in Food Technology. 6. In view of this position, I do not find anything wrong with the view taken by the School Tribunal. Not only this, though the petitioner got about 20 years for improving her division, it appears that the petitioner has not taken any steps. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel that she has got very short time left till her superannuation is hardly relevant. The School Tribunal has applied the law correctly. 7. In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. 8. Upon oral request of Shri Sharma, learned counsel, present judgment is stayed till 30th November 2010 to enable the petitioner to take further appropriate steps in the matter. The interim stay shall stand vacated automatically thereafter.