SONAI APANG VIKAS AND SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, NANDURBAR AND ANR. Vs. JYOTI DULESING RANAWAT AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sonai Apang Vikas And Shikshan Sanstha, Nandurbar And Anr.
Jyoti Dulesing Ranawat And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
SUNIL P.DESHMUKH,J. -
(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioners approach this court against order dated 03-10-2011 passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Nashik Division, Nashik - respondent no. 3 herein, whereunder appeal filed by Sau. Jyoti Dulesing Ranawat - respondent no. 1 herein, against her termination under letter dated 20-12-2006 issued by the President of Deaf and Dumb Residential School, Nandurbar run under aegis of Sonai Apang Vikas and Shikshan Sanstha, Nandurbar - petitioner no. 1 herein, putting an end to her services as Cook in said school, has been allowed. Simultaneously, the petitioners also pose question about efficacy of clause 86 of the Handicapped School Code, 1997 HINDI MATTER(hereinafter "the Code of 1997").
(3.) It would be pertinent to succinctly refer to the factual aspects as under:-
The petitioners run aforesaid school with approval of the State Government pursuant to relevant enactment viz. the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter "1995 enactment"). Respondent no.1 had been appointed in said school as a Cook under order dated 07-06-1995 for a period from 07-06-1995 to 01-05-1996. Thereafter, it appears that permanent appointment order w.e.f. 01-04-1998 had been issued to respondent no. 1 under the signature of President of petitioner no. 1. It further appears that her said appointment had been approved by District Social Welfare Officer alongwith other employees under order dated 30-07-2001. Subsequently, as referred to above, her services were brought to an end under order dated 20-12-2006 referring to that she has been punctual in attendance and had been remaining absent without any prior notice and habitually proceeding on leave. There have been complaints against her and several notices and memos were given to her and further that Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar had instituted enquiry. In the circumstances, from 20-12- 2006, she had been removed from service. Respondent no.1 had challenged aforesaid termination order before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Nashik - respondent no. 3. Petitioners in the same had filed its response, contending that appeal was maintainable before Divisional Social Welfare Officer and the appeal is within limitation. Respondent no.1 had been appointed by following proper procedure, her appointment was a back-door entry, she happened to be daughter-in-law of Vice President, while her husband was Head Master and mother-in-law was Treasurer. However, a decision had been communicated to petitioners around 30-06-2011, directing to reinstate respondent no.1 with full backwages.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.