1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2671 OF 2010. Smt. Asha Shivajirao Deore, Age: 47 Yrs., occu. Nil R/o 81, Shivpratap Colony, Near Tulshiram Nagar, Deopur, Dhule, Dist.Dhule. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Jaihind Shaikshanik Trust, Dhule, office at Jaihind High School, Deopur, Dhule. Dist.Dhule. 2) The Head Master, Jaihind High School, attached Jaihind Jr.College, Deopur, Dhule. 3) The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik. - RESPONDENTS ***** Surekha Mahajan,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.AS Sawant,Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2; Mr.VG Shelke, AGP for Respondent No.3. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 27th October,2010. JUDGMENT: 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties extensively. Rule was issued on 4th May, 2 2010. 2) The petitioner questions the order of learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik dated 18.2.1010 declining to issue directions to the respondents/management to reinstate her. 3) From the record there is no controversy that the petitioner was appointed with the respondents as part-time teacher in Respondent No.2 - Junior College by orders dated 29.7.2004 and 4.7.2005 and then up to April 2006 respectively. The petitioner was assigned the workload of 16 hours. Her appointment was on excess post. Consequently, it was not recognized by the Government since there was no approval granted. It is thus vivid, the School Committee appointed the petitioner as part-time Shikshan Sevika for the above period. The name of the petitioner was included in the proposal for the years 2006-2007. However, the Education Officer did not approve the same as the strength of the pupils in the respondent/Jr.College was not in proportionate with the workload. 4) The petitioner canvassed that subsequent appointment given to Smt. Manisha Bacchav as a teacher for Marathi subject with workload of 12 3 hours was illegal. The petitioner staked her rights to said appointment though petitioner was originally appointed as a teacher to teach Education Science subject. 5) The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, on analyzing the factual details found the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis, she was a part-time teacher and consequently, she could not get deemed benefit of permanency. It was also noticed that the strength of the students has considerably been decreased for Education Science subject resulting in reduction of the workload. Since the strength of the pupils of Marathi subject was increased, a Full-time teacher was appointed for Marathi subject. The petitioner could not stake her claim to the said post, she being teacher of Education Science subject. It may be, that the petitioner holds requisite qualification for appointment as a teacher, however, that by itself will not qualify her as or right to claim appointment. There is no illegality that the petitioner could demonstrate in the act of the respondent/management in terminating the petitioner’s services. The charges shown by learned Counsel for the petitioner, even if taken into consideration, however, that will not be advancing petitioner’s 4 right to stake appointment to the post of a teacher in Marathi subject. 6) The Deputy Director of Education has also illustrated that the petitioner was a part- time Shikshan Sevika and for the ear 2007-2008 there was no adequate strength of subject left, she was not competent to be appointed. The authority also indicated, if there is no workload, such teachers cannot be treated as additional to be absorbed somewhere. The termination of the petitioner by order dated 25th July, 2006, in the set of above facts, cannot be said to be erroneous. 7) The learned Counsel for the petitioner took recourse to the judgment in the matter of Shikshan Prasarak Manda Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and Anr. - 2005 (6) Bom.C.R. 311. The factual matrix of the said case is on different pedestal, it will not be available to be coined. 8) In the matter of Hindi Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai and Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai and Ors. - 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 563, dispute was relating to want of approval and the appointment of such members of staff would not render invalid. There cannot be any question to 5 the legal proposition. However, since the school has to maintain adequate staff and the record illustrate that there was adequate staff with the respondents, the appointment of the petitioner being on temporary position on workload basis and since the strength of the students for Education Science subject was decreasing, there is no illegality in terminating the services of the petitioner. 9) In spite of above position, in the light of Judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban – (2007) 9 SCC 748;in the matter of Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ramsahai and Anr. - (2006) 11 SCC 684; in the matter of R.N.Nanjundappa Vs. T.Thimmiah and Anr. - (1972) 1 SCC 409; and in the matter of Sita Ram and Ors. Vs. Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute – (2008) 5 SCC 75, it is apparent, even if the services of an employee are found to be legally terminated, the Court has discretion, but considering the ground realities, to award adequate compensation in favour of such employee. 10) The survey of the factual matrix illustrate the petitioner has put in temporary service of three years for 16/12 hours and consequently she will not be in a position to 6 stake permanency and hence compensation is the only available solution. Hence order - 11) Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. The petitioner is eligible to receive an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) as compensation from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Such amount to be paid within three months from today. No Costs. sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/2671.10wp fldr.25.10.10 Authenticated copy (BD VADNERE,PS)