CANTONMENT BOARD OF DEOLALI Vs. USHA DEVIDAS DONGRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution Cantonment Board of Deolali, District Nasik is challenging legality of order dated 21st January 1987 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Bombay Region. By the impugned order the Tribunal held that discontinuance of respondent No. 1 from service was without authority of law and, therefore, directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 to the post of a teacher and payment of 50% of back wages. The petition was admitted on 27th March 1987 but interim relief was not granted with the result that respondent No. 1 had rejoined the school.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 was appointed as primary school teacher in Hindi Primary School on December 5, 1983. It is the claim of the Cantonment Board that the appointment was in a leave vacancy and the appointment was for a short duration but was continued from time to time and ultimately the appointment lapsed on 30th April 1985. Respondent No. 1 claiming that she was appointed in a permanent vacancy and had become permanent after completion of two years period from the date of initial appointment challenged the discontinuation of her service by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Section 8 of the Act confers power upon the State Government to constitute School Tribunal and section 9 confers right on employee in a private school to prefer an appeal to the tribunal against the order of dismissal, removal or superannuation by the management. The appeal was resisted by the Cantonment Board by claiming that in respect of schools run by the Cantonment Board the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Board also contended that the appeal was barred by period of limitation prescribed under section 9 (2) of the Act. On merits the Board claimed that the termination of the services was legal and proper. The tribunal by the impugned order held that the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under section 9 (1) of the Act. The tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case. The tribunal further held that the removal or discontinuation of respondent No. 1 was contrary to the provisions of law and respondent No. 1 had acquired status of permanent teacher. The order of the tribunal is under challenge.

(3.) MRS. Keluskar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the tribunal committed an error in assuming jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It was contended that the provisions of the Act are not attracted in respect of schools established or administered by the local authorities and Cantonment Board is a local authority. To appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. Before adverting to those provisions it is required to be stated that the subject of education which was initially in the State List was included in the Concurrent List by Forty-second Amendment with effect from 3rd January 1977. Prior to 3rd January 1977 Entry No. 11 of List of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution read as under: