Somnath Kondaji Korde v. Samata Samaj Vikas Sanstha

5.5. She would submit that said Krishna Devram Raut did not rejoin service after completion of his tenure. Public notice was issued but no response was received. Hence his services came to an end and the post reserved for S.T. remained vacant. She would submit that 6 of 15 Petitioner was therefore appointed to that post by following the due process of law.

5.6. She would submit that pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2014 Respondent No.3 directed termination of Petitioner. By order dated 30.06.2014 Respondent No.3 cancelled the approval of Petitioner and granted approval to Respondent No.4 with back wages from 09.04.2009. She would submit that this was only to protect Respondent No.4 as there were technical discrepancies and multiple Court orders. She would submit that Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 had also addressed letters to Respondent No.3 and Education Authorities pointing out such errors.

5.7. She would submit that the School Tribunal failed to consider that there were multiple litigations for appointment to the said post qua Respondent No.4. She would submit that dismissal of Petitioner’s Appeal was therefore bad in law. Hence she would urge the Court to quash and set aside the impugned order and allow the present Writ Petition.

5.8. Mr. Gutte, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 - Education Board has drawn my attention to the Affidavit-in-reply filed by Dr. Mita Chaudhari – Administrative Officer with Respondent No.3 dated 06.08.2025 appended at page No.170 of the Petition. He would submit that by consent order this Court directed reinstatement of 7 of 15 Respondent No.4 as Assistant Teacher, despite the same, Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 did not comply, compelling Respondent No.4 to file Contempt Petition No.403 of 2009. By order dated 11.02.2014, Respondents were directed to comply. He would submit that Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 suppressed orders of this Court. He referred to order dated 12.04.2007 in Writ Petition No.9795 of 2004 directing Respondents not to fill the vacancies without leave of Court. Though the Petition was later dismissed for non-prosecution, Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 without permission and without following procedure appointed Petitioner as Assistant Teacher on 30.06.2012. He would submit that Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 failed to follow directions of this Court as well as procedure under Section 5 and Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. He has drawn my attention to para No.56 of the impugned order where School Tribunal has passed strictures against Respondent No.2 – School for such illegal act.

5.9. He would submit that Petitioner’s appointment was illegal as the order in Writ Petition No.9795 of 2005 was still in operation. He pointed out that while granting approval, Respondent No.3 specifically recorded in Clause No.13 that appointment of Petitioner was subject to decision in Contempt Petition No.403 of 2009. 8 of 15

5.10. He would submit that School Tribunal in para Nos.36 and 37 of the impugned order rightly held that there was no permanent vacant post in the reserved category for 2011-2012. Hence, he would urge this Court to dismiss the Petition.

6. Mr. Pandire, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 would submit that Respondent No.4 was not appointed on a reserved category post. She was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 26.02.2001 and was illegally terminated by Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 on 13.12.2003. He would submit that after multiple litigations and orders in her favour, Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 allowed her to re-join on 09.04.2009, though she was not paid salary. He would submit that Respondent No.3 thereafter granted approval to her appointment pursuant to directions of this Court. He would submit that appointment of Petitioner is independent of Respondent No.4 as she has been working in Respondent No.2 – School since 26.02.2001 whereas Petitioner was appointed only on 01.07.2012. He would submit that Petitioner has not produced copy of roster to establish that his appointment was against reserved category post. He would submit that it is not the case that Respondent No.4 replaced Petitioner but rather that Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 concocted such a story to deprive Respondent No.4 of her rights. Hence, he would urge the Court to dismiss the present Writ Petition. 9 of 15

7. I have heard Mr. Sale, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Ms. Hingmire, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.[1] and 2, Mr. Gutte, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Pandire, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 and perused the record of the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the Court.

8. At the outset, it is seen that the School Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by Petitioner on the ground that only photocopies of documents i.e. staffing pattern to show whether vacancy of ST category post existed were placed on record. During the present proceedings, Ms. Hingmire, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.[1] and 2, produced before this Court all original record relating to the appointment of Petitioner. These original documents i.e. original record of Exhibits – 4/17 and 4/18 clearly establish that Petitioner’s appointment was validly made against a clear vacant post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category by following the selection process.

9. It is seen that Petitioner possessed requisite educational qualifications as well as caste validity certificate certifying that he belonged to Mahadev Koli - Scheduled Tribe appended below Exhibit ‘D’ at page No.44 of the Petition. The advertisement issued on 15.06.2012 appended below Exhibit ‘A’ at page No.127 of the Petition clearly shows that applications were invited for the post of Assistant 10 of 15 Teacher (Shikshan Sevak) for the Scheduled Tribe category. Pursuant to the said advertisement Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 selected Petitioner and issued him appointment order w.e.f. 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2015.

10. Record further discloses that Respondent No.3 – Education Board granted approval to Petitioner’s appointment on 30.12.2012. However by letter dated 03.06.2014 appended below Exhibit ‘E’ at page 41 of the Petition, Respondent No.3 abruptly cancelled the said approval and simultaneously directed appointment of Respondent No.4 with retrospective effect from 15.01.2005 because of the litigation of Respondent No.4 in this Court. It is seen that acting upon the said direction Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 issued termination letter dated 16.07.2014 to Petitioner appended below Exhibit ‘F’ at page 40 of the Petition. This cancellation of approval and consequential termination were done without issuing any notice to Petitioner or affording him opportunity of hearing as to why he was terminated. Such an action is contrary to all principles of natural justice and violative of Section 4(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 read with Rule 28 of the MEPS Rules,

1981. Infact there is no nexus of appointment of Petitioner by following the due selection process and reappointment of Respondent No.4 due to Court orders as Respondent No.4 was appointed against regular vacancy. 11 of 15

11. The contention of Respondent No.3 that Petitioner was appointed without a permanent vacant post being available is untenable and contrary to record. The communication dated 03.04.2012 issued by Respondent No.3 appended at page No.43 of the Petition, directed Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 to fill up the backlog of Scheduled Tribe category teachers. It is pursuant to this very directive that advertisement dated 15.06.2012 was issued and Petitioner was appointed after following the selection process. Once Petitioner’s appointment was made in accordance with due selection process and approval was granted, subsequent cancellation of approval without reasoned justification only to accommodate Respondent No.4 to save contempt action cannot stand.

12. It is also relevant to note that appointment of Respondent No.4 and that of Petitioner stand on entirely different footing. Respondent No.4 was appointed in the year 2001 and her services were terminated in 2003, and thereafter she engaged in multiple rounds of litigation culminating in various orders, including order dated 11.02.2014 in Contempt Petition No.403 of 2009. Petitioner, on the other hand was appointed pursuant to the advertisement of 2012 on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Record does not support the contention that Petitioner was appointed in substitution of Respondent No.4. On the contrary, both appointments arise from separate processes altogether. Thus, the reasoning of the School Tribunal that 12 of 15 Petitioner’s appointment was invalid on account of pendency of litigation concerning Respondent No.4 is completely misconceived and misplaced.

13. It is further seen that Respondent No.3 now seeks to justify cancellation of Petitioner’s approval by contending that his appointment was illegal however this contention does not inspire confidence of the Court. If the appointment was not in accordance with law, Respondent No.3 ought not to have granted approval at the very inception by addressing communication dated 30.12.2012. By having granted such approval, Respondent No.3 could not have permitted Petitioner to continue in service for nearly two years and thereafter abruptly cancelled the approval by letter dated 03.06.2014. Such conduct of Respondent No.3 demonstrates arbitrariness and lack of administrative propriety.

14. However if Respondent No.3 desired to rely upon the earlier orders of this Court, including order dated 12.04.2007 in Writ Petition No.9795 of 2004 directing that two posts be kept vacant, then it was for Respondent No.3 to ensure that such direction was implemented and the said two posts were kept vacant. Record shows that despite this specific direction, Respondent No.3 proceeded to grant approval to appointments, including that of Petitioner and thereafter sought to cancel the same belatedly without any justification. It is seen that Respondent No.3 not only failed to comply with the order of this Court 13 of 15 but also acted in a manner prejudicial to the rights of the Petitioner who accepted appointment in good faith pursuant to public advertisement and undergoing selection process.

15. Thus, the stand taken by Respondent No.3 is selfcontradictory. On one hand, Respondent No.3 granted approval to Petitioner’s appointment and on the other after allowing him to serve for two years cancelled approval on the ground that his appointment was not valid. Such inconsistent and arbitrary exercise of power cannot be sustained in law. Ground for rejection of Petitioner’s case that original papers of staffing pattern and availability of ST category vacancy were not produced before the Tribunal and only photocopies were produced is rejected. It is an unsustainable ground.

16. In view of the above observations and findings, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik in Appeal No.43 of 2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The termination of the Petitioner dated 16.07.2014 is illegal and Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

17. Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 are directed to reinstate Petitioner forthwith on the post of Assistant Teacher reserved for Schedule Tribe category with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. Respondent No.3 – Education Board shall grant approval to Petitioner’s appointment within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of this 14 of 15 order and shall ensure that backwages and arrears of salary and all admissible benefits are paid to Petitioner within a further period of 4 (four) weeks thereafter alongwith continuity of service.

18. It is clarified that appointment of Respondent No.4 and that of Petitioner are not interrelated. Hence, appointment of Respondent No.4 stands unaffected. Petitioner’s appointment stands independently on the basis of the advertisement published in the year 2012 and the backlog vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe being filled up after following the selection process.

19. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed in the above terms. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 15 of 15 TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE