1 wp-4081-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 4081 OF 2008 Shri.Dadasaheb Kisan Jagdale ..Petitioner Vs. The Principal N.M.V.High School, Pune and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Vishal Kale and Mr.Jayendra Khairnar Adv. for Petitioner Ms. Meena H. Doshi Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-original complainant and the learned counsel for the Respondent-Educational Institution. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as full time Instructor by Respondent no.2 from 4th July, 1988 in technical wing of Junior College Section. His case is that he continued working upto 31st July, 1991. By letter dated 26.7.1991, his services were terminated from 1st August, 1991, hence, he preferred Appeal No. 48 of 1996 before the School Tribunal, Pune. By order dated 27th March, 2008, the said appeal came to be dismissed, hence, this petition. 2 wp-4081-08 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Instructor. He submitted that when he was appointed in the year 1988, there was no criteria provided for holding the post of Instructor. He submitted that the Petitioner had qualification of S.S.C. with N.C.T.V.T Certificate and three years experience and these are sufficient qualifications. 4. Schedule B of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 refers to qualifications required for full time teachers in Secondary Junior College of Education. For the post held by the petitioner, the qualifications required are as under: 5. (1) As per the SSC Board syllabus: “(a) Diploma in Mechanical/Automobile Engineering; Or (b) (i) S.S.C. with N.C.T.V.T. Certificate in Mechanics in the Motor Vehicle Trade; (ii) C.T.I. Trained; (iii) At least three years experience; Or (c) (i) Vocational Education Certificate in Auto Engineering Technician Trade; (ii) At least three years experience; 3 wp-4081-08 (2) As per Recruitment Rules prescribed by the Government of Maharashtra in the Education and Employment Department No.Voc/1191/6935/(1119)/Vya.Shi.-2 Dt. 30/11/1991: Diploma in Mechanical Engineering/Automobile Engineering with 2nd class and one year experience and should have passed S.S.C., N.C.T.V., C.T.I./A.I.T. Or Should have passed the Higher Secondary Examination in Auto Engineering Technician Trade with the prescribed Teachers Training and three years experience. 6. Clearly, the Petitioner does not fall in the categories A, C or Category 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner would fall in category B. Even if category B is seen, the Petitioner has only the first qualification i.e. S.S.C. plus N.C.T.V.T. Certificate in Mechanics. Admittedly, he is not C.T.I. Trained, which is necessary in addition to S.S.C. plus N.C.T.V.T. Certificate. Thus, at the time of his appointment, Petitioner did not have the necessary qualifications. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner gave an undertaking on 2nd February, 1990 to Respondent to acquire the qualifications of C.T.I. Training in two years period. Admittedly, till he came to be terminated, he had not acquired any such qualification. 7. Initial appointment of the Petitioner was on a temporary post. Even 4 wp-4081-08 thereafter, subsequent appointment orders show that the appointment was temporary in nature that is only for a period of one year. The appointment order clearly states that his appointment is purely temporary for that academic year. The learned counsel for the Petitioner tried to rely on the order of appointments wherein it is stated that “your appointment is on probation for the period of two years ”. However, this sentence cannot be considered in isolation and the entire paragraph has to be read as a whole. The said paragraph reads as under: “Your appointment is purely temporary for a period of Year 89-90 in the leave vacancy. After expiry of the above period, your services shall stand terminated without any notice or your appointment is on probation for the period of two years. ” 8. It is seen that the petitioner ’s first appointment order dated 4.7.1988 is not at all in the format prescribed in Schedule-D. It specifically mentions his posting as “Hangami ” (Seasonal/temporary) Instructor till the end of summer vacation of 1988-89. It also mentions that it was an unaided post in S.M.S. wing of the school. Needless to say that this letter does not indicate that he was appointed on probation. Petitioner ’s appointment orders dated 12.6.1989 and 11.6.1990 on the post of Instructor (Auto. Engg.) in Schedule-D format are till the end of academic years 1989-90 and 1990-91 respectively. In the 2nd 5 wp-4081-08 paragraph of both these appointment orders, it is mentioned that the appointment is purely temporary and after expiry of said period, his services would stand terminated without any notice. 9. In continuation of the same paragraph, the words “or your appointment is on probation for the period of two years ” are not scored out. But in the next paragraph the space meant for name of Doctor for the medical test of the employee when appointment is on probation is left blank in both the orders. Taking into consideration this fact as well as the other fact that the first part showing the specific fixed period of appointment has been specifically filled up, in my view, the only inference that can be drawn is that the second part i.e. appointment on probation, was not at all meant to be acted upon. Moreover, the approval orders in respect of the appointment of the petitioner were also only on year to year basis. That is approval was only granted for that one year. 10.It is manifest that the petitioner ’s appointment orders specifically show that the appointment was for a fixed term i.e. upto the end of the academic year without any notice. The approval orders show that the petitioner does not possess requisite qualifications and hence, the approval was granted till the end of that particular academic year only and the Management was directed to fill up the post in the next year with a duly qualified person. The petitioner did not have the necessary 6 wp-4081-08 qualification when he was appointed, nor did he acquire the required qualification till the date that he came to be terminated. Looking to all these facts, no case is made out for interference in the order of the School Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]