In a second appeal regarding a dismissal from service, the Court held that the appellant was not a permanent teacher as she did not render continuous service for two years due to annual breaks. Consequently, the dismissal was not illegal, and the appeal fails.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 48 OF 1989
Jayashri Chitaman Abhyankar age major, occup. primary Teacher, Bhusawal.
appellant/orig. plaintiff.
versus
The Railway North Colony Education Society, Bhusawal, by its President D.K. Moharir, age 50 years, occupation railway service, senior clerk D.S.Office, Bhusawal.
respondent/orig. defendant.
Shri R.L. Chabda, Advocate, instructed by Shri P.R.Patil, Advocate for the appellant. None for the Respondent.
Coram : P. R. Borkar, J. Date : July 13, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
2
3
Respondent that appointment of the appellant-plaintiff was as per the rules and for a particular academic year. She was given one months notice before termination of her services. In the circumstances, Respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Mh.L.J. 110. It is held that at the most remedy of the appellant-plaintiff is to claim damages, but not the declaration or injunction amounting to specific performance of the contract. It is also held that the appellant-plaintiff was not permanent teacher as her each appointment was necessarily for a period of 10-11 months and, therefore, her removal cannot be said to be improper or illegal.
4
(a) Whether in view of Bombay Primary Education (Amendment) Rules, 1974, which came into force with effect from 8th February 1974, the Appellant is deemed to be a permanent teacher by reason of her continuous service in a permanent vacancy from August 1970 to April 1975.
(b) Whether by reason of model conditions of employment of teachers framed under Rules 106 (3), 111(2) (c) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules as amended with effect from 8th February 1974 vide Conditions 5,6,9,1 the termination of Appellant's employment with the Respondent was illegal, arbitrary and without following the procedure prescribed under the said rules."
the Bombay Primary Education (Amendment) Rules, 1974 which came into force from 8.2.1974. It is, therefore, obvious that these rules have come into force before termination of the appellant's services by notice dated 2.4.1975. Advocate Shri Chabda relied upon rule 9.2(1) of the said Rules, which reads :-
5
" 9. Termination of Employment.
9.1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
9.2. (1). The services of a permanent employee may be terminated by the management without assigning any reason on giving compensation as follows:-
(i) Twelve months' salary (pay and allowances, if any) to the employee if he/she has been in the service of the school for ten years or more;
(ii) Six months' salary (pay and allowances, if any) to the employee, if he/she has been in the service of the school for less than ten years."
6
11. Consequently, second appeal stands dismissed.
pnd/SA48.89(P.R.BORKAR, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is deemed a permanent teacher by reason of continuous service under the Bombay Primary Education (Amendment) Rules, 1974.
Whether the termination of the appellant's employment was illegal and arbitrary without following prescribed procedure.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pana Jesuit School Society vs. Petter Dhavaji BasulDistinguished¶18
Pana Jesuit School Society vs. Petter Dhavaji Basul, 1981 Mh.L.J. 110 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jayashri Chitaman Abhyankar
The Railway North Colony Education Society
P. R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court