Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Parimal Hanumant Dhopte, was appointed as a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) by the Mahekar Education Society. The Society had advertised two posts of Assistant Teacher and one post of PTI. However, the Society appointed two PTIs, including the petitioner and respondent no.7 Sandip Molse, and only one Assistant Teacher. The petitioner's services were terminated on 13.8.1998. He appealed to the School Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal holding that his appointment was not legal and proper because it was against a post that was not advertised. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court noted that the respondent no.7 was not a party to the appeal before the Tribunal but was later joined in the writ petition. The court considered the argument that the Tribunal's order was passed without hearing respondent no.7, but found that the petitioner had not challenged the appointment of respondent no.7 and that the Tribunal's finding on the illegality of the petitioner's appointment was correct. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Legality of Appointment - Appointment against non-advertised post - The petitioner was appointed as PTI against a post that was not advertised, as only one PTI post was advertised but two appointments were made - The School Tribunal held that the appointment was not legal and proper - The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no error in the finding that the appointment was illegal (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the petitioner as PTI was legal and proper when only one PTI post was advertised but two appointments were made.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the School Tribunal.
Law Points
- Appointment against non-advertised post is illegal
- School Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide legality of appointment
- Non-joinder of necessary party does not vitiate proceedings if no prejudice caused
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 122
WRIT PETITION NO. 1183 /2000
Mr. Rohit Deo with Mr P.B.Patil for petitioner, Mr V.B.Bhise for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Ms. T.Khan A.G.P for Respondents 3 and 4, Mr. Rohit Rathi for Mr R. Shiralkar for Res.No.5, Mr. S.A.Kalbande for respondent no.7
Parimal son of Hanumant Dhopte
Mahekar Education Society of Mehekar, Headmaster, MES High School, Deputy Director of Education, Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Bhalchandra Laxmikant Moharil, Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Sandip Prabhakar Molse
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the School Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against termination of his services.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to challenge the order of the School Tribunal dated 6.1.2000 in Appeal No.114/1998.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's services were terminated by order dated 13.8.1998, and his appeal to the School Tribunal was dismissed.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal holding that his appointment was not legal and proper.
Issues
Whether the appointment of the petitioner as PTI was legal and proper when only one PTI post was advertised but two appointments were made.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's order was passed without hearing respondent no.7, who was a necessary party.
The petitioner contended that the appointment was legal and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
An appointment made against a post that was not advertised is illegal and improper, and the School Tribunal's finding to that effect is correct.
Judgment Excerpts
The School Tribunal dismissed his Appeal holding that the posts advertised were two posts of Assistant Teacher and one post for Physical Training Instructor (PTI) but appointments of two PTIs in place of one post were made including the petitioner and as against two posts of Assistant Teacher, only one candidate had been appointed.
the Tribunal held that the appointment of the petitioner was not legal and proper and, therefore, his Appeal stood dismissed.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as PTI and terminated on 13.8.1998. He appealed to the School Tribunal (Appeal No.114/1998), which dismissed the appeal on 6.1.2000. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in the High Court. Respondent no.7 was not a party to the appeal but was later joined in the writ petition.
