Dismissed

Satpute Bandu Shankar v. Shivaji Education Society and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2004LPA/51/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal concerns the classification of a teacher's appointment in a reserved category post. The court held that the judgment relied upon by the High Court regarding probation does not apply where the appointment was made against a reserved category post.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2002
Shri. Satpute Bandu Shankar ... Appellant
Vs.
Shri. Shivaji Education Society and Others ... Respondents
Mr. Mihir Desai for Appellant.
Mr. S.S. Deshpande for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 03, 2004
P.C. :
1. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel
points out that the judgment in Hindustan Education
Society and another Vs. Sk. Kaleem Sk. Gulam
BNabi & Ors. 1998 (2) Bom.C.R.146 the ratio will
have to be restricted to only those cases where the
teacher cannot be appointed on permanent basis in
clear vacancy. It is pointed out that the Apex
Court was merely considering question before it
namely letter of appointment where the appellant
was purely temporary for the period of 11 months.
It is pointed out that if the rules framed under
Maharashtra Employees of Private School Regulation
Act, 1977 are concerned, conjoint reading of Rule 6

IN
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
JUDICATURE
AT
BOMBAY
CIVIL
APPELLATE
SIDE

LETTERS
PATENT
APPEAL
NO.
51
OF
2002

Shri. Satpute Bandu Shankar
... Appellant

Vs.

Shri.
Shivaji
Education
Society
and Others
... Respondents

Mr.
Mihir
Desai
for
Appellant.

Mr.
S.S.
Deshpande
for
Respondent
Nos.
1
and
2.

CORAM
:
F.I.
REBELLO
&
ANOOP
V.
MOHTA,JJ.

DATED
:
SEPTEMBER
03,
2004

P.C.
:

1.
On
behalf
of
the
appellant,
the
learned
counsel

points
out
that
the
judgment
in
Hindustan
Education

Society
and
another
Vs.
Sk.
Kaleem
Sk.
Gulam

BNabi
&
Ors.
1998
(2)
Bom.C.R.146
the
ratio
will

have
to
be
restricted
to
only
those
cases
where
the

teacher
cannot
be
appointed
on
permanent
basis
in

clear
vacancy.
It
is
pointed
out
that
the
Apex

Court
was
merely
considering
question
before
it

namely
letter
of
appointment
where
the
appellant

was
purely
temporary
for
the
period
of
11
months.

It
is
pointed
out
that
if
the
rules
framed
under

Maharashtra
Employees
of
Private
School
Regulation

Act,
1977
are
concerned,
conjoint
reading
of
Rule
6

and ru	le 9 and	rule 10 would show that a temporary
employee	is one	who is appointed to temporary
vacancy	in the	fixed period. Such temporary
appointments	can be	made under the Rules (9). Such
temporary	appointment	can also be made in case of
leave	vacancy or	in the event a teacher holds lien
on the	post.	All other cases, it is contended
where	there is	regular vacancy has to be filled in
terms of	Section	5 (2) of the Act and after
following	due	procedure. Even if such appointment
is styled	as tempo	rary for all purposes it is to be
considered	as	appointment on probation. The
Management,	it	is contended cannot defeat the
statutory	provisions	by resorting to temporary
appointments	in	clear vacancy except in
contingencies	as refe	rred to earlier. The issue in

and
ru

le
9
and

rule
10
would
show
that
a
temporary

employee

is
one

who
is
appointed
to
temporary

vacancy

in
the

fixed
period.
Such
temporary

appointments

can
be

made
under
the
Rules
(9).
Such

temporary

appointment

can
also
be
made
in
case
of

leave

vacancy
or

in
the
event
a
teacher
holds
lien

on
the

post.

All
other
cases,
it
is
contended

where

there
is

regular
vacancy
has
to
be
filled
in

terms
of

Section

5
(2)
of
the
Act
and
after

following

due

procedure.
Even
if
such
appointment

is
styled

as
tempo

rary
for
all
purposes
it
is
to
be

considered

appointment
on
probation.
The

Management,

is
contended
cannot
defeat
the

statutory

provisions

by
resorting
to
temporary

appointments

clear
vacancy
except
in

contingencies

as
refe

rred
to
earlier.
The
issue
in

2.	It	is	not	possib	le for	us	to	conside	r the
judgement		in	Hindus	tan	(supra)	based	on	what	is
urged	by	the	learned	coun	sel.	As	the	said	judgment
is not		available	before	us,	we	leave	it	open	to the

not

possib

le
for

conside

r
the

judgement

Hindus

tan

(supra)

based

what

urged

the

learned

coun

sel.

the

said

judgment

is
not

available

before

us,

leave

open

to
the

the	order	of th	e	Tribunal as	of	the learne	d	Single
Judge	that	the	ap	pointment of	the	appellant		was
against	reserved	ca	tegory	post	and	in		these
circumstances	,	even		though P	etitioner	had		worked
for	two	years,	he	could not	be tre	ated as		deemed
probationer.		We	do	not find	that	judgement	of	the
learned	Single	Judge	su	ffers from	any	error	of	law.

the

order

of
th

Tribunal
as

the
learne

Single

Judge

that

the

pointment
of

the

appellant

was

against

reserved

tegory

post

and

these

circumstances

even

though
P

etitioner

had

worked

for

two

years,

could
not

be
tre

ated
as

deemed

probationer.

not
find

that

judgement

the

learned

Single

Judge

ffers
from

any

error

law.

Satpute Bandu Shankar v. Shivaji Education Society and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpute Bandu Shankar v. Shivaji Education Society and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Waman Gholap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Association of Engineering Workers Vs Smt.N.a.Kadam and Anr.

Manisha Girish Pai Vs Laxman v Pai and Anr.

Balaram Nathu Mhatre. Vs State of Maharashtra through Spl.Land Acq.Officer.

Abdul Gani Khatri Vs R.v.Anjurkar

Sakalnarayan Singh Sitalaprasad Singh and Ors. Vs Kamlesh S/O. Awadhnarayan and Ors.