Dismissed

Shri Shrisai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. v. Shri Balasaheb Shrihari Gawade

Bombay HC26 Feb 2009WP/1245/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the School Tribunal order that reinstated the respondent as an Assistant Teacher with full back wages, holding the appointment was valid and services deemed confirmed under the Act.

What did the court decide?

The petition for review of the School Tribunal order allowing the appeal and reinstating the respondent was dismissed.

Shri Shrisai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1245 OF 2000

¶5

 Secretary,

¶6

 Shri Shrisai Shikshan Prasasak Mandal

¶7

 & Anr. : Petitioners

¶8

 V/s.

¶9

 Shri Balasaheb Shrihari Gawade : Respondent

¶10

 Mr.Mandar Limaye i/b. Mr.R.S.Apte for the petitioners.

¶11

 Mrs.Anita Agarwal for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J.

¶13

 DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009.
P.C.

¶14

 1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the

¶15

 School Tribunal dated 7.10.1999 by which the respondent’s
 appeal is allowed and the order of termination of the
 respondent’s services is quashed and set aside. The
 petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent
 as an Asstt. Teacher with effect from 16.8.1995 with full
 back wages.

¶16

 2. The respondent was appointed as an Asstt. Teacher by

¶17

 an appointment order dated 31.3.1992. The order
 stipulated that the appointment is on probation for a

¶18

 -: 2 :-

¶19

 period of two years. The respondent apparently continued
 in service till his services were terminated on 16.8.1995
 by which a direction was issued to the respondent not to
 sign the register of attendance. The respondent preferred
 an appeal against his termination to the School Tribunal.
 Before the School Tribunal, the petitioners contended that
 the respondent had not been appointed by the petitioner-
 society at all and had not worked as a Teacher and,
 therefore, his claim for reinstatement is totally
 untenable and baseless. The Tribunal considered the rival
 contentions and the material on record and came to the
 conclusion that the respondent was duly appointed by an
 appointment order of the Headmaster who is also the
 Secretary of the School Committee. Since his services
 were on probation and he continued for a period beyond two
 years, his services must be deemed to have been confirmed
 under section 5(2) of the Act and, therefore, allowed the
 appeal.

¶20

 3. Mr.Limaye, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
 submitted that the order of the School Tribunal is
 vitiated inasmuch as the Tribunal had not appreciated that
 there was no appointment order validly made by the
 management. In support of this contention, Mr.Limaye
 submitted that it is the function of the School Committee
 to make appointment of an employee vide Schedule ‘A’ rule

¶21

 -: 3 :-

¶22

 3(c) and that the respondent had not produced any

¶23

 resolution of the School Committee by which he was
 appointed. This submission cannot be accepted. The
 appointment order, as observed by the School Tribunal, is
 signed by the Headmaster who is the Secretary of the
 School Committee and the respondent has produced that
 appointment order. There is no reason why the respondent
 ought to have been in possession of the resolution of the
 School Committee or any other body of the
 petitioner-society, deciding to appoint him.

¶24

 4. It was next contended by Mr.Limaye that the respondent
 was appointed by the reason of personal relationship with
 one Atole and has not worked as a Teacher at all. It was
 contended that the respondent failed to produce any
 evidence that he worked. There is no merit in this
 contention either. The respondent has produced the
 appointment order and stated that he has been working as a
 Teacher for a period as long as three years. In fact, he
 also produced a letter written by the Education Officer to
 the petitioners in respect of the proposal for approval of
 the respondent’s services. This letter is obviously

¶25

 written by the Education Officer in response to a proposal
 for approval of the respondent’s services sent by the

¶26

 petitioners. There is no dispute that it is the
 management which always sends proposals for approval of

¶27

 -: 4 :-

¶28

 the services of a Teacher. Moreover, it was obviously the
 petitioner who was in possession of the entire record of
 the School and could have clearly demonstrated from those

¶29

 records that the respondent did not take any classes or
 signed the attendance register. There is thus no reason
 to accept the petitioners’ case. It is obvious that the
 respondent was not only appointed by the petitioners and
 the petitioners did not take any action for recall or
 cancel the appointment. Not only that, the petitioners
 apparently forwarded the proposal for approval of the
 respondent’s services to the Education Officer. In fact,
 it is interesting to note that the termination order
 basically directs the respondent to stop signing the
 attendance register which presumably he was signing till
 such termination.

¶30

 5. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to
 interfere with the order of the School tribunal. Petition
 is, therefore, dismissed.

¶31

S.A. BOBDE, J.

Shri Shrisai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. v. Shri Balasaheb Shrihari Gawade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shrisai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. v. Shri Balasaheb Shrihari Gawade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shreedatt a Sardesai Vs Celetron India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shri Pralhad Rambhau Kahar Vs Celetron India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Suryakant Pundlik Patil

Shri Rafik Husain Shaikh Vs M/S.Thermax Ltd. and Ors.

M/S.Skf India Limited Vs Pandurang Dattatraya Nangare and Ors.

Shahaji Kisan Khilare Vs Shri Bhairavnath Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.