Writ Petition No. 3101 of 2001. Case: Vijaya Vs Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 3101 of 2001
CounselFor Appellant: S.R. Barlinge, Advocate and For Respondents: S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate, V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate and R.K. Ladda, A.G.P.
JudgesR. V. Ghuge, J.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateAugust 28, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)


R. V. Ghuge, J.

1. By an order dated 05/09/2001, this petition was admitted. Rule was expedited. The appointment of respondent No.4 made by the Management pursuant to the termination of the petitioner on the post which she had previously occupied, was made subject to the result of this petition.

2. The submissions of Mr.S.R.Barlinge, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner are as under: -

(a) The petitioner is educationally qualified to be appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' and the same is undisputed.

(b) The first appointment order of the petitioner is dated 01/08/1991.

(c) The said appointment order, in clause 2, indicates that she was appointed on probation for one academic year.

(d) A second appointment order was issued to the petitioner, which is dated 15/06/1992. The same is indicated to be a continuing order of appointment.

(e) By the second order, as well, she was appointed on probation by way of continuation with the earlier appointment order. However, probation period is not mentioned in clause 2 of the said order.

(f) A third appointment order was issued to the petitioner, which is dated 10/06/1993 and which indicates that she is again appointed on probation for one academic year.

(g) The petitioner, at the time of joining duties with respondent No.1 Management, in the respondent No.2 school, was called upon to sign certain blank papers since they were to be utilized for the purposes of her salary and approval.

(h) By an application dated 25/04/1994, the petitioner appraised respondent No.3 Education Officer about her apprehension that the blank stamp papers are likely to be used to the prejudice of the petitioner and may be utilized to project that she has resigned from her employment. She, therefore, informed respondent No.3 that she had not resigned and in the event, any such document is placed before it, the same should not be accepted.

(i) By communication dated 25/04/1994, respondent No.3 informed the Management that though the school is operated on 100% Grant Basis, the proposal of the petitioner for approval has not been submitted and instead a proposal of Mr.J.V.Gaikwad, respondent No.4 herein, has been forwarded. The Management was therefore directed to submit the proposal of the petitioner for approval, forthwith.

(j) The respondent / Management declined to allow the petitioner to sign on the muster roll w.e.f. 23/04/1994.

(k) She, therefore, preferred an Appeal No. 65/1994 before the School Tribunal at Aurangabad.

(l) The entire case of the petitioner rests on the basis of having attained deemed permanency u/s 5(2) of The M.E.P.S. Act and that she was being kept away from employment, which amounts to termination.

(m) The respondents filed their written statement in response to the appeal.

(n) The respondent Management has contended in the written statement that they had received several complaints from the parents and students, indicating that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory and was blemished.

(o) The exposure of the reasons of the Management in its written statement indicate that the oral termination of the petitioner was on account of certain charges and the foundation of the oral termination was therefore allegations of mis -conduct.

(p) The petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radhyeshyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 669 and Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre, AIR 1999 SC 983.

(q) If the case of the respondent was as regards resignation, the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act, especially Section 7 and Rule 40 of The M.E.P.S. Rules 1981 were necessarily required to be followed.

(r) Even if the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has resigned is to be accepted for the sake of assumption, the same does not stand scrutiny of Section 7 and Rule 40.

(s) The petitioner was granted interim relief by the Tribunal by its interim order dated 10/05/1994, which continued till 05/07/2001.

(t) The interim order so passed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT