Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 64 (BOM)

Pramod Raghunath Vaidya v. Yuvak Vidyalaya

2013-01-10

R.K.DESHPANDE

body2013
Judgment : 1. Heard Sh. Bhandarkar, the learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Sh. Sundaram, the learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sh. Thengre, the learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition challenges the Judgment and order dated 26-9-2008 passed by the Grievance Committee dismissing the Appeal No.31 of 2004 filed by the petitioner challenging his termination from service by an order dated 18-7-2005. The Grievance Committee has held that the appointment of the petitioner on 23-7-2002 was made without following the procedure and, hence, it cannot be treated to have been made on probation. 3. The petitioner possesses the qualifications of B.A., B.Ed and he was initially appointed on 1-1-2002. According to the averments made in the memo of appeal the appointment of the petitioner was made in place of one Sh. J.R. Meshram in the permanent vacancy occurred due to his death and, thereafter, he was continuously working on the post till the date of his termination on 18-7-2005. The learned Advocate, therefore, submits that the petitioner has acquired the status of deemed confirmed employee in terms of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 [for short, ‘the MEPS Act’] and, hence, his services could not have been terminated. 4. It is not in dispute that Sh. J.R. Meshram was working as a middle school teacher possessing the qualifications of H.S.S.C., D.Ed.. The petitioner was possessing the qualifications of B.A. B.Ed., hence, he was not qualified for being appointed as a middle school teacher in place of Sh. Meshram. The Education Officer has refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as 'Shikshan Sewak' in place of Sh. Meshram on the ground that one Sh. Chure was a candidate sent from the list of surplus employee to be absorbed in place of Sh. Meshram. In view of this, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Grievance Committee that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as a middle school teacher and that his appointment was not made. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed the reliance upon the advertisement probably issued in the month of June, 2002 inviting the applications for two posts of 'Shikshan Sewak' possessing B.A., B.Ed. qualifications to be appointed to teach the classes on no grant basis. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed the reliance upon the advertisement probably issued in the month of June, 2002 inviting the applications for two posts of 'Shikshan Sewak' possessing B.A., B.Ed. qualifications to be appointed to teach the classes on no grant basis. My attention is invited to an order of appointment dated 1-1-2002/23-7-2002 appointing the petitioner on fixed pay of Rs.4000/-for the period of 23-7-2002 to 23-7-2005. The Grievance Committee has held that as per the said advertisement the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and the Nomadic Tribe were required to be given the preference. It has also been held that there is nothing on record to show that in case the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and the Scheduled Caste were not available so as to appoint the petitioner not belonging to the categories for which the preference was to be given. The appointment was required to be made in the high school. The Grievance Committee has recorded the finding that the appointment of the petitioner was in the middle school in place of Sh. Meshram. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the high school after following the procedure prescribed. 6. Hence, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Grievance Committee. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.