Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1502 (BOM)

Annu M. Gurunasinghani v. Swami Shanti Prakash

2010-10-08

NISHITA MHATRE

body2010
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the judgment and order of the School Tribunal dated 4.12.2001. By this order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the primary section of the school run by the 1st respondent institution as in May, 1998. She was qualified with the B.A. and B.Ed. degrees. Since the petitioner did not have the qualification of the D.Ed. course, she was appointed on a temporary vacancy by the 1st respondent to work in the primary section of the school i.e. respondent No.4. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 30.4.1999 by giving her a notice of one month. She was appointed again on a temporary vacancy on 17.6.1999. The petitioner had not attained the D.Ed. qualification even by this date. Her services were then terminated on 31.3.2000. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondent institution, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.29 of 2000 before the Additional School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai, on 29.4.2000. On 4.12.2001, the School Tribunal held that the services of the petitioner had been validly terminated. The Tribunal was of the view that since the petitioner did not possess the D.Ed. qualification for teaching students in the primary section, she was not entitled to reinstatement in service. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan v/s State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in 2000 (3) Mah.L.J. 605. The Tribunal further held that since the appointment itself was for a temporary period, the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement. 3. Mr.Ramamurthy appearing for the petitioner has argued that although the petitioner did not possess the qualification of the D.Ed. course, she ought to have been appointed in 25% quota reserved for untrained teachers. He points out that this quota is reserved pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government. According to him, the Tribunal ought to have considered whether the petitioner could be said to have been appointed as an untrained teacher in its 25% quota. He then submits that it was necessary for the Tribunal to decide whether an enquiry ought to have been held before terminating the services of the petitioner. According to him, the principles of natural justice requires that an enquiry be held even prior to terminating the services of the temporary employee. 4. He then submits that it was necessary for the Tribunal to decide whether an enquiry ought to have been held before terminating the services of the petitioner. According to him, the principles of natural justice requires that an enquiry be held even prior to terminating the services of the temporary employee. 4. These contentions raised by Mr.Ramamurthy in the present petition were not the grounds taken up before the School Tribunal in the appeal. There is not a single averment in the appeal nor is there any pleading in the present writ petition to the effect that the petitioner had been appointed in the quota for untrained teachers in the primary section since she did not possess the D.Ed. qualification. In these circumstances, in my view, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned advocate. Mr.Ramamurthy has submitted that this quota for untrained teachers was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v/s Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & ors., reported in 2007 (9) S.C.C. 201 , which was delivered after the appeal was filed. According to him, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Kondiba s/o Dattatrao Mirashe v/s State of Maharashtra & Others, reported in 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 432 , has observed that it was permissible to appoint one teacher having B.Ed./B.Sc. degree as per the State Government Government resolution dated 14.11.1979. He points out that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v/s Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & ors., (supra), upheld the judgment in Kondiba’s case (supra) and has held that it was permissible for graduates holding B.Ed. degree to be appointed in a primary school in accordance with the Government Resolution of 1979 i.e. within the 25% quota. Mr.Ramamurthy submits that since the judgment was rendered only in 2007, the petitioner was not aware of this position and, therefore, may not have pleaded her case in the appeal filed by her before the School Tribunal. This submission cannot be accepted. The Government Resolution is of 14.11.1979. The judgment in the case of Kondiba was delivered on 12.9.2002. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been aware of the position in law. Ignorantia juris non excusat. 5. In my view, therefore, the submission of Mr.Ramamurthy cannot be accepted. 6. This submission cannot be accepted. The Government Resolution is of 14.11.1979. The judgment in the case of Kondiba was delivered on 12.9.2002. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been aware of the position in law. Ignorantia juris non excusat. 5. In my view, therefore, the submission of Mr.Ramamurthy cannot be accepted. 6. The contention of Mr.Ramamurthy that an enquiry ought to have been held before terminating the services of the petitioner also cannot be accepted. The petitioner undisputedly was a temporary employee appointed for a temporary period. At the end of that period she was not continued in service and was informed that the institution no longer required her services. No stigmatic order has been passed against her. 7. In these circumstances, there was no need to hold the domestic enquiry. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.