Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shrikrushna s/o Nilkanth Joshi, was an Assistant Teacher at Geeta Prashala, Kopargaon, run by the Kopargaon Education Society. He was appointed on 18/06/1982 for one academic year on consolidated salary. Identical appointment orders were issued each June from 1982 to 1993, and he continued on consolidated wages. On 20/05/1993, the Chairman of the Society passed an order terminating his services with effect from 13/08/1993. The petitioner challenged this termination before the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 171/1993, which was rejected on 11/07/2000. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition. The High Court noted that the petitioner had acquired a B.Ed. degree before joining, but his appointments were always temporary and on consolidated salary. The court observed that the petitioner was kept out of employment after 14/07/2000 despite interim orders. The court considered the undisputed facts and held that the petitioner's successive temporary appointments did not create any right to permanency. The termination was not illegal as the appointment was purely temporary. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the School Tribunal's decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Appointment - Permanent Status - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on consolidated salary for one academic year at a time, renewed annually from 1982 to 1993. The court held that such successive temporary appointments do not confer any right to permanency. The termination was not illegal as the appointment was purely temporary. The School Tribunal's rejection of the appeal was upheld. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on consolidated salary for successive academic years from 1982 to 1993, acquired a right to permanency and whether his termination with effect from 13/08/1993 was illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 11/07/2000. The court held that the petitioner's successive temporary appointments on consolidated salary did not confer any right to permanency, and his termination was not illegal.
Law Points
- Temporary appointment on consolidated salary does not confer permanent status
- Continuous temporary appointments do not create right to permanency
- Termination of temporary employee is not illegal
- School Tribunal's rejection of appeal upheld
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 170
WRIT PETITION NO. 3697 OF 2000
Shri S. R. Barlinge for Petitioner, Shri S. S. Shete for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri S. T. Shelke for Respondent No.3, Shri P. G. Godhamgaonkar for Respondent No.4
Shrikrushna s/o Nilkanth Joshi
Kopargaon Education Society, The Head Master, The Education Officer (Primary), The Administrative Officer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's appeal against termination.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the School Tribunal's judgment dated 11/07/2000 and to be reinstated in service.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 13/08/1993, and his appeal before the School Tribunal was rejected.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal rejected Appeal No. 171/1993 on 11/07/2000.
Issues
Whether the petitioner's successive temporary appointments on consolidated salary conferred a right to permanency.
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services was illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his termination was illegal and that he had acquired a right to permanency due to continuous service from 1982 to 1993.
Respondents argued that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for each academic year and did not acquire any right to permanency.
Ratio Decidendi
Successive temporary appointments on consolidated salary for fixed academic terms do not create a right to permanency. Termination of such a temporary employee is not illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner had acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) before joining respondent No.1.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide appointment order dated 18/06/1982 for a period of one academic year on consolidated salary.
Identical orders were issued in the month of June of each year till 1993, consecutively and he was continued on consolidated wages for each academic year from 1982 till 1993.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 18/06/1982 on consolidated salary for one academic year. His appointment was renewed annually until 1993. On 20/05/1993, the Chairman passed an order terminating his services with effect from 13/08/1993. He filed Appeal No. 171/1993 before the School Tribunal, which was rejected on 11/07/2000. He then filed the present writ petition on 06/09/2000, and interim relief was granted but he was already relieved on 14/07/2000. The petition was admitted on 20/07/2001 and finally heard on 28/02/2019.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
