Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dilipkumar Fanendranath Katre, was employed as a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) at Swamy Vivekanand High School, Karanja, run by Parashram Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha. He possessed qualifications of M.A. and B.P.Ed. He was initially appointed on 9.7.2001, and subsequently by fresh orders dated 26.2.2002 and 30.4.2003. The Education Officer approved his appointment for two years on 24.8.2004 w.e.f. 9.7.2001. However, on 17.1.2005, the approval was cancelled on the ground that there was only one post of PTI, which was occupied by respondent no.5, Krishnakant Bhailal Bisan. Consequently, the petitioner's services were terminated on 29.11.2005. The petitioner challenged the termination before the School Tribunal (Nagpur) Chandrapur in Appeal No. STC01/2006, which dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal recorded findings that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and not PTI, and that he manipulated records to show his appointment as PTI. Alternatively, even if his appointment as PTI was considered, there was only one post of PTI occupied by respondent no.5, and hence termination was justified. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted the undisputed factual position that the petitioner was appointed as PTI, but the approval was cancelled due to non-availability of a post. The court held that no fault could be found with the termination on the ground that there was no post available, as two persons could not be appointed to occupy only one post, and respondent no.5 was senior to the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the termination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Non-Availability of Post - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Termination of an employee appointed as Physical Training Instructor was upheld where there was only one sanctioned post of PTI, already occupied by a senior employee. The court held that two persons cannot be appointed against a single post and the termination was justified. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services as Physical Training Instructor was valid on the ground that there was only one sanctioned post of PTI, which was already occupied by a senior employee.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the termination of the petitioner's services on the ground that there was no post available for him as PTI, as only one sanctioned post existed and was occupied by a senior employee.
Law Points
- Termination of service due to non-availability of post is valid
- Two persons cannot be appointed against a single sanctioned post
- Seniority determines retention in case of single post
