1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1590 OF 2005 Hiraman Santosh Dhangar ... Petitioner v/s The Secretary Shantinagar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Patharli, dombivli (E) & ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Rao for the respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 10TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petition has been filed by a dismissed Assistant Teacher against the order passed by the School Tribunal on 15.12.2004 in Appeal No.68 of 2002. 2. The facts involved in the present case are as follows:- The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Teacher from 1.11.1996 and continued in service till he was terminated from service on 9.9.2002. The petitioner 2 challenged his termination from service by preferring an appeal being Appeal No.68 of 2002 before the School Tribunal. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the appeal should be dismissed on the following grounds:- (i) That the Education Officer had not approved the petitioner’s appointment which was purely on a temporary basis. (ii) That the petitioner was not qualified for teaching in the primary section of the school since he had not passed the D.Ed. Examination. 3. On perusal of the judgment and order passed in the appeal, I find that the appeal has been dismissed only on the ground that the Education Officer had not approved the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. This conclusion of the School Tribunal that the appeal should be dismissed as the petitioner could not be reinstated in service since there was no approval to his appointment, is contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of St. Ulai High School & anr. v/s. Shri Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh & anr., reported in 2007 (2) ALL MR 1. The Full Bench, after considering several judgments including the judgment in the case of Anna Manikrao 3 Pethe v/s The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, reported in 1998 (3) ALL M.R. 155 and in the case of Shailaja Ashokrao Walse v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in 1999 (1) ALL MR 452, has overruled these judgments. The Full Bench was of the view that, neither the M.E.P.S. Act nor the Rules framed thereunder mandate the grant of approval by the Education officer as a condition precedent to a valid order of appointment in service. The Full Bench has further observed that the requirement of the approval from the Education Officer which relates to the disbursal of grant in aid is a matter between the management and the State and therefore want of approval will not invalidate an order of appointment. 4. Thus, the judgments on which the Tribunal has relied in the case of Anna M. Pethe (supra) and Shailaja A. Walse (supra) are no longer good law. The Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal only on the ground that no approval was granted by the Education Officer. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no approval to his appointment, if the appointment of the petitioner in service was in accordance with law, his services could not have been terminated without following the due process of law. 5. The impugned order is therefore set aside. 4 6. However, the Tribunal has not considered the grounds raised by the management for terminating the services of the petitioner, namely, that the school was not an aided school and that the petitioner was not duly qualified for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the primary section of the school. These issues will have to be decided by the Tribunal. 7. Therefore, Rule is made absolute. 8. Appeal No.68 of 2002 is remanded for hearing on the aforesaid two issues. All contentions of the parties on these two issues are left open. 9. The School Tribunal will decide the appeal by 31.12.2010. ..... 5