Case: Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha and Ors Vs. Dilip Ganpatrao Lanjewar and Ors

Kurian Joseph, J.1. Respondent No. 1 was appointed initially for a period of 10 months i.e. from 01.07.1990 to 30.04.1991. After a period of two months (apparently summer vacation), the Respondent was again appointed as teacher for a period of 10 months. Thereafter, he was discontinued from service.2. The Respondent challenged the same before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuance was illegal. Therefore, an order was passed to reinstate the Respondent with all consequential benefits.3. The same was challenged by the Appellant-Management before the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed. The Appellant still pursued the matter before the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal. The appeal was also dismissed.Hence, this appeal.4. Mr. A.V. Mohta, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, placing heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in Hindustan Education Society and Anr. v. S.K. Kaleem S.K. Gulam Nabi and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1971 of 1997) dated 10.03.1997, submits that the Respondent having accepted an appointment for a fixed period, cannot claim continuance in the school. However, on the facts, we find that it was an appointment against a permanent vacancy, which is not disputed either before the Tribunal or before the High Court.5. In that view of the matter, we are also of the view that the High Court has rightly distinguished the case of Hindustan Education Society (supra) with the present case.6. The Respondent has been out of service since 1992. We are informed that he would be otherwise due to superannuate in the year 2019.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]However, on the facts, we find that it was an appointment against a permanent vacancy, which is not disputed either before the Tribunal or before the High Court5. In that view of the matter, we are also of the view that the High Court has rightly distinguished the case of Hindustan Education Society (supra) with the present case6. The Respondent has been out of service since 1992. We are informed that he would be otherwise due to superannuate in the year 2019.