1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1082 OF 2010 (Ku. Shital s/o Raghunath Sarjare vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 3, 2011 Heard Shri Khanzode, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Shri Shende, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. The petition is directed against the order dated 15/6/2009 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) whereby petitioner though came to be absorbed in another School in view of Rule 25-A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, however, has 2 been denied continuity of service and other benefits. Shri Khanzode, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that School where petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher came to be de-recognised in the year 1995 and, therefore, Director of Education vide communication dated 20/1/1997 directed absorption of the petitioner in Rashtriya Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dongargaon, Tahsil and District Gondia. It is submitted that action of the respondents in treating the absorption of the petitioner as a fresh appointment and not granting continuity of service and other benefits is unsustainable in law and, therefore, impugned order is bad in law. The controversy is no more res integra and is concluded by the earlier decision of this Court, dated 6/11/2006 rendered in Writ Petition No. 651/2003. In para (27) of the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus : “A teacher, who is terminated on account of contingency covered by Rule 25-A can only be 3 considered for recommendations to the Management of other School for being appointed on their establishment as a “fresh candidate” and such management is required to consider the case of the employee for absorption and any such appointment of employee terminated under Rule 25-A is required to be treated as “newly appointed employee”, who has (the petitioner in this case) suffered termination under Rule 25-A of the MEPS Rules.” In view of the above observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, it is evident that if service of any Teacher is terminated on account of closure of School and the recommendations are given in respect of the said Teacher to be absorbed in another School, then appointment of such Teacher would be a new appointment and not in continuation of old one. Similar is the scheme of provisions of Rule 25-A of the MEPS Rules. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that termination of service of the petitioner was on account of de-recognition of the School and, therefore, question of continuity in service after absorption does not arise since appointment after absorption is a fresh appointment and since it is not reinstatement, it is not in 4 continuation of old one. In that view of the matter, the petition suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj