MAHARASHTRA SHIKHAN PRASARAK MANDAL Vs. KASHINATH BHANOJI TAYDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No. 8/1994 filed under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 by 4 different employees/teachers came to be decided by the Judgement and order dated 26-7-1994 and the same had been impugned in these 4 petitions. Hence, the petitions are decided by a common Judgement.

(2.) The Petitioner No.1 is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 with registration no.E-219 Thane dated 13-5-1961 and it was formed for the purpose of imparting education. Petitioner No.2 was the Managing Trustee of the Petitioner No. 1 at the relevant time. The Petitioner No. 1 was running a primary school known as "Maharashtra Vidyalaya" Secondary School known as "Dhanaji Nana Chaudhari Multi purpose High School and junior college. In the year 1991-92 the Petitioners started the Centrally sponsored plus 2 stage Vocational Education Scheme (VES) under the New Education Policy and the qualifications for the teachers for such vocational courses came to be approved by the Government of Maharashtra vide its letter dated 30-11-1991 for conducting Vocational Courses 100% grant for payment of salary of the employees etc. is reimbursed by the Government. The petitioners released an advertisement in the local newspaper on or about 14-5-1991 for the appointment of teaching staff like lecturers, instructors and technicians etc. The Respondent No.2 is a Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training and is the representative of Respondent No.3 State of Maharashtra with supervisory powers for the implementation of VES. In response to the advertisement, number of applications were received and consequently, Appellant No.1 Mrs. Shubhada A.Aravkar came to be appointed as an instructor vide the appointment letter dated 10-7-1991 and purely on temporary basis for the academic year 1991-92. Similarly, appellant No.2 Mrs. Nayana Muley came to be appointed on 19-8-1991 on temporary basis for the academic year 1991-92, appellant no. 3 Shri Kashinath Tayade came to be appointed on 8-7-1992 and appellant no.4 Hukumchand Patil was appointed on 16-7-1991 but on temporary basis for the academic year 1991-92. Thus, 3 of the 4 appellants were appointed in the year 1991-92 when admissions to the XIth standard were made. In the next academic year failures were retained in the XIth Standard with the new entrants and those who had passed, came to be promoted in XIIth standard and, therefore, in the said year both the divisions of the Vocational Courses started. Consequently, the appellant no. 3 was an additional faculty member and the appellant no. 1, 2 & 4 were issued fresh appointment orders on probation for two years alongwith the appellant no.3.

(3.) Appellants Nos. 1,2 & 4 were issued letters of appointment on probation dated 20-6-1992 wherein the appellant no. 3 was issued such order dated 8-7-1992 as noted earlier. In normal course appellant no. 1,2 and 4 would have completed probation period on 19-6-1994 and the appellant no.3 would have completed on 7-7-1994 but that did not happen. It appears that in the academic year 1993-94 the admissions to the XIth standard were not upto the required strength as set out in the Government Guidelines for being continued to be an aided educational school. The management reassessed the situation sometimes in December 1993 and it realised that there was hardly any scope to continue both the classes in the academic year 1994-95 and hence, on 27-1-1994 all the appellants were issued notices informing that in the year 1994-95 there would not be any admissions in the XIIth standard and in the current academic year i.e. 1993-94, XIth standard was discontinued.