Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishwanath Dagdu Gudhadhe, was appointed as a teacher on 18.03.1994 against a vacancy caused by the retirement of Tulshiram Shinde on 28.02.1994. His appointment was made without prior permission of the Education Officer, leading to non-approval and subsequent termination from service on 03.12.1996. The petitioner challenged the termination before the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 168/1996, which was dismissed on 29.06.2005. He then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. During the proceedings, the High Court noted the Full Bench judgment in St. Ulai High School v. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh and directed the Education Officer to reconsider the approval. On 30.04.2008, the Education Officer granted approval to the appointment from 01.07.2003. The respondents 1 and 2 (the school management) supported the petitioner, arguing that the approval should be from the date of initial appointment. The learned A.G.P. contended that the approval order need not be reasoned. The Court held that since the vacancy was clear and the school supported the petitioner, the approval should be from the date of initial appointment, i.e., 18.03.1994. The writ petition was allowed, and the Education Officer was directed to modify the approval accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Approval of Appointment - The petitioner-employee challenged termination from service by School Tribunal. Court directed Education Officer to reconsider approval, which was granted from 01.07.2003. Held that approval should be from the date of initial appointment as the vacancy was clear and respondents supported the petitioner. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the approval granted to the petitioner's appointment from 01.07.2003 should have been from the date of initial appointment on 18.03.1994.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Education Officer dated 30.04.2008 is modified to the extent that the approval to the appointment of the petitioner shall be from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 18.03.1994. The Education Officer is directed to issue a fresh order accordingly within four weeks.
Law Points
- Approval of appointment
- termination of service
- School Tribunal
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 370
Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2005
Mr. Anjan De for Petitioner, Mr. A.M. Ghare for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mrs. T.D. Khade for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4
Vishwanath Dagdu Gudhadhe
Rashtriya Vidhya Niketan, Akola through its President, Headmaster, NWW Swawlambi Vidyalaya, Akola, Dy. Director of Education, Amravati, Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Akola
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the School Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against termination from service.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to challenge the termination order and obtain approval of his appointment from the initial date.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was terminated from service on 03.12.1996, and his appeal before the School Tribunal was dismissed on 29.06.2005.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. 168/1996 on 29.06.2005. The High Court on 23.03.2007 directed the Education Officer to reconsider approval, which was granted on 30.04.2008 from 01.07.2003.
Issues
Whether the approval of appointment should be from the date of initial appointment or from a later date.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2 argued that approval should be from the date of initial appointment (18.03.1994) as the vacancy was clear.
Respondent nos. 3 and 4 (State) argued that the approval order need not be reasoned and was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a clear vacancy exists and the school management supports the employee, approval of appointment should be granted from the date of initial appointment, not from a later date.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – employee is challenging the order passed by the School Tribunal on 29.06.2005 in Appeal No. 168/1996, whereby his appeal challenging the termination from service by order dated 3.12.1996 came to be dismissed.
In view of the subsequent developments in the matter, it is not necessary for this Court to go into details of the said challenge.
The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Education Officer dated 30.04.2008 is modified to the extent that the approval to the appointment of the petitioner shall be from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 18.03.1994.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed on 18.03.1994, terminated on 03.12.1996, appealed to the School Tribunal which dismissed the appeal on 29.06.2005, then filed the present writ petition. On 23.03.2007, the High Court directed the Education Officer to reconsider approval, which was granted on 30.04.2008 from 01.07.2003. The present judgment modifies that approval to be from 18.03.1994.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
