1 12 wp 2241-11.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2241 OF 2011 Shri Jaywant Pandurang Tendulkar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Ashok M.Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.P.I.Khemani, AGP for State/respondents. CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 24th MARCH, 2011 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for parties. 2 By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner challenges the order dated 24th February, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur, dismissing petitioner’s Appeal No.80 of 2002 challenging the order passed by respondent-school terminating the Petitioner’s services dated 30th May, 2002 with effect from 6th June, 2002. 2 12 wp 2241-11.doc 3 Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed by appointment letter dated 12th June, 2000 for a period of 15th June, 2000 to 14th June, 2002 on temporary probation period. Clause 2 of the said appointment letter reads thus: “2/ *Your appointment is purely temperary for a period of two years months/years from 15/06/2000 to 14/06/2002 in the *leave veecney/deputed your appointment is on probation for a period of two years.” 4 During the period of probation, the respondent-school by their letter dated 30th May, 2002 terminated petitioner’s services. The same was challenged by the Petitioner by preferring Appeal before School Tribunal, Kolhapur under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions and Services) Regulation Act, 1977. 5 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submits that the School Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the Secretary of Society issued recognition letter for allowing petitioner to take further education and to complete B.Ed. course. 3 12 wp 2241-11.doc 6 Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis. His services were not approved by the Education Officer. When the Petitioner was appointed in the year 2000, there was complete ban on appointment of new teachers in schools by the Government. The appointment letter was issued by the Secretary of Society who is relative of Petitioner. Apart from that as the Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, he cannot claim any right on that post. Our High Court in the matter of Anna Manikrao Pethe vs. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal & Others, reported in 1998 (4) Bom.C.R.565 held that the temporary appointees to the post cannot claim right of continuity in service. Paragraph 14 of that authority reads thus: “14 It is thus clear that the Supreme Court has held that the temporary appointees are not entitled to claim permanent status and unless such permanent vacancies are filled in as per section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act, the temporary appointees cannot have any grievance. The facts in the case of Hindustan Education Society (supra) are similar to the present case inasmuch as the petitioner was an untrained teacher and 4 12 wp 2241-11.doc during the relevant three years, he was appointed on purely temporary basis during each academic year. His case is, therefore, governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Education Society (supra). In addition, it is also clear from the records that there was no termination order issued against the petitioner at any time by respondents No.2 & 3 and his grievance of oral termination with effect from 19-4-1990 is without any basis. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the first proviso to Rule 6(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any errors apparent on the face of the record.” 7 In similar way, the Apex Court in the matter of Hindustan Education Society and another vs. Sk. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi and others, reported in 1997 SC 2126 held that if a teacher is appointed purely on temporary for a limited period then his appointment cannot be considered to be a permanent appointment. Paragraph 5 of that judgment reads thus: 5 12 wp 2241-11.doc “In view of the above and the order of appointment, the appointment of the respondent was purely temporary for a limited period. Obviously, the approval given by the competent authority was for that temporary appointment. As regards permanent appointments, they are regulated by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Act according to which the Management shall, as soon as possible, fill up, in the manner prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by appointment of a person duly qualified to fill in such vacancy. Every person so appointed shall be put on probation for a period of two years subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5). He shall, on completion of the probation of period of two years, be confirmed.” 8 Considering the facts on record that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis and the appointment letter was issued by his relative though during that period there was a ban by the State of Maharashtra for new appointments of teachers in the schools. He was appointed on temporary basis. Therefore, he cannot claim any right in that post, as held by our 6 12 wp 2241-11.doc High Court as well as by Apex Court in the above mentioned authorities. 9 Considering these facts, I do not find any substance in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. 1 (K.K. TATED, J.)