AKBAR PEERBHOY COLLEGE Vs. PRAMILA N KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 Akbar Peerbhoy College of Commerce and Economics is a college affiliated to the University of Bombay for its degree classes and recognised by the Government of Maharashtra for its Junior college classes. It receives grant-in-aid from the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 1 Mrs. Pramila N. Kutty was appointed pursuant to her application and interview as a full time lecturer in English in the junior section of petitioner No. 1 college with effect from 27-7-1981 on basic salary of Rs. 500/- plus usual allowances permissible as per the rules in the scale of Rs. 500-900. In the appointment order it was stated that her appointment was for the current academic year only and shall terminate automatically on the last working day of the year i. e. 20-4-1982. The respondent No. 1 is M. A. in English Literature having passed the said post graduate examination in the year 1978. She did her B. Ed. in the year 1981. It appears that the respondent No. 1 was given appointment subsequently by the petitioner for the academic years upto 1989. ON 22-6-1989 the respondent No. 1 was again appointed as a full time lecturer in English in the petitioner No. 1 college with effect from 26-6-1989 or the date she reports for duty. The said appointment was purely temporary for a period from 26-6-1989 to 20-4-1990. It was stated in the said appointment letter that after expiry of the above period her services shall stand terminated without any notice. The terms of her employment and conditions of services was in accordance with the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. On 19-4-1990, the Principal of the petitioner No. 1 college informed the respondent No. 1 that it would not be possible to continue with her services in the college with effect from 21-4-1990. Aggrieved by the said communication dated 19-4-1990, which according to the petitioner was her termination from the service, an appeal was preferred by her before the School Tribunal, Bombay. In the appeal, the principal contentions advanced by the respondent No. 1 herein were that she ought to have been issued notice before termination of her services in accordance with Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981. According to her, she was denied fair and reasonable opportunity and the said termination was against the principles of natural justice. It was also contended in the appeal that the communication of termination was signed by the Principal who was not competent to issue termination order.

(2.) THE appeal was contested by the present petitioner before the School Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was employed on purely temporary post and her services came to an end on 20-4-90 since her appointment was only upto that date. According to the petitioner, in view of the terms of the appointment order, no separate order of termination was required and the communication dated 19-4-1990 was not and could not be construed as a termination order. According to the petitioner, in the very nature of appointment of the respondent No. 1, compliance of Rule 28 (1) of Rules of 1981 was not required. The petitioner also contended that the respondent No. 1 was not qualified for her permanent appointment as Lecturer in English, Junior College since she did not possess the requisite qualification. Thus, the petitioner prayed before the School Tribunal that the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 had no merit and was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE School Tribunal heard the arguments and by the order dated 31-3-1992 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and set aside the termination notice dated 19-4-1990 and directed the petitioner College to reinstate her to her original post and pay her the differences of emoluments, including pay and allowances from the date of termination of her services till she was reinstated. The order dated 31-3-1992 passed by the School Tribunal is impugned in the present writ petition.