JUDGMENT
B.H. Marlapalle, J.
1. This petition impugns the Judgement and order dated 13-8-1996 rendered by the School Tribunal at Nashik dismissing Appeal No. 40/1994 and thereby turning down the petitioner’s challenge to the order of termination dated 3-9-1994 and consequently dismissing his plea for reinstatement under the Respondent No. 4 i.e. Sardar High School and Engineering College, Islamnagar, Malegaon.
2. The Petitioner at the relevant time held the qualifications of B.Com. B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed. and as per him the Respondent No. 1 Society had released an advertisement, invited applications for two posts of Assistant Teachers with qualifications of B.Sc., B.Ed/B.P.Ed. and B.A., B.Ed./B.P.Ed. and this requirement was published in the local newspaper by name Citizen Times on 15-7-1991. In response to the said advertisement the petitioner claims to have submitted an application, he underwent the selection process and was issued an appointment order dated 12-6-1991. The said appointment was on probation for a period of two years and it was effective from 14-6-1991 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-2600. As per the petitioner he was surprised to receive another appointment order dated 10-7-1993 in the very same pay scale and again on probation for a period of two years and at the end of the academic year 1993-94 he was issued with a notice that his appointment would come to an end on 30-4-1994. He, therefore, approached the School Tribunal and filed Appeal No. 40/1994 in the month of September 2004. As per the petitioner he had worked for three consecutive academic years i.e. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 and his initial appointment having been made on probation, he had become a permanent teacher at the end of the academic year 1992-93 and hence the notice informing that his tenure would come to an end on 30-4-1994 was illegal. He, therefore, prayed for reinstatement with backwages and consequential benefits in his Appeal before the School Tribunal.
3. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appeared before the School Tribunal and opposed the application by filing a written-statement. Before the written-statement was filed, by an exparte interim order dated 30-9-1994 the stay to the notice of termination was granted. The petitioner alleged that the said ad-interim order was not implemented by the management and, therefore, he had filed Contempt Petition No. 30/1994 before the School Tribunal. Even after filing of the Contempt Petition, the petitioner was not reinstated. In the written statement filed by the management it was alleged that the appointment letter dated 12-6-1991 was false and fabricated and in any case the Respondent No. 4 Head Master did not have authority to issue an appointment order for the post of Assistant Teacher. The management also denied to have released the advertisement published in Citizen Times on 15-7-1991 and it contended that the rival group in the management had released the same advertisement mischievously. However,the management admitted that in the next academic year 1992-93 the petitioner was engaged but as a part time Assistant Teacher in Physical Education/English and he was paid remuneration of Rs. 700/-per month. The management also denied to have issued the subsequent appointment order dated 10-7-1993 and if there was any such appointment order issued by the Head Master as claimed by the petitioner, the Head Master did not have any such authority. The appellant was not in service in the academic year 1993-94 and he has not signed on muster-rolls as well. The management, therefore, stated that at no point of time the appellant was appointed as a full time teacher on probation and his tenure came to an end by efflux of time. Consequently, there was no cause of action to file an Appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 (the Act for short).
4. On the basis of the rival submissions made by both the parties before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, the following issues require considerations,
(a) Whether the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on probation in the academic year 1991-92 in Respondent No. 4 High School and Junior College?
(b) Whether he was appointed on probation either in the academic year 1991-92 or in the academic year 1993-94? and
(c) Whether the petitioner was appointed on part time basis for the first time only in the academic year 1992-93 and whether he was continued in the next academic year as a fresh appointee, on part time or full time basis?
5. While disputing the release of advertisement published in the local newspaper on 15-7-1990, the management ought to have filed certain documents insupport of its contentions that for the first time the petitioner/appellant came to be appointed on part time basis in the academic year 1992-93. At the sametime the allegation of appellant was that though he was appointed in the year 1991-92, he was not paid salary though the said appointment was on probation. The management placed on record the Annual Inspection Reports for academic years i.e. 1990-91,1991-92 and 1992-93. These inspection reports have been signed by the Head Master and the inspection was undertaken by the Deputy Education Officer/Group Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon. In the inspection report for the academic year 1990-91 (date of inspection was 12-11-1991) it is clearly noted that the Respondent No. 4 School had four teachers in all and two of them possessed the qualifications of B.Sc. B.Ed. The petitioner’s name did not appear in the said inspection report. The next inspection report for the academic year 1991-92 indicated that there were 5 teachers, 3 of them with B.Sc. B.Ed. qualifications and remaining two with B.A. B.Ed. qualifications. The name of the Petitioner did not find place. The Head Master was one of these four or five teachers in the respective academic years. The inspection report for the academic year 1992-93 (inspection dated 30-2-1993) indicated that the School had 6 teachers, 3 of them with B.Sc. B.Ed. qualifications, 2 with B.A., B.Ed. qualifications and 6th teacher was the petitioner who possessed the qualification of B.Com. B.P.Ed. The chart annexed to the inspection report shows that he was a part time teacher for Physical Training/English and had only 7-8 hours work load in a week. The inspection report indicates that the teachers were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-2600 but the petitioner was shown to have been appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 700/-per month in the purported pay scale of Rs. 700-1300. There is a seniority list signed by the Head Master as on 25-9-1992 placed on record which shows the initial date of appointment of the petitioner as 15-7-1992 and the petitioner has been shown as a part timer.
6. In addition the order dated 2-4-1993 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nashik, goes to show that the petitioner’s appointment as part time was approved w.e.f. 13-7-1992 and was approved only for the academic year 1992-93. There is another order purportedly issued by the Education Officer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad,Nashik sometimes in July 1994 and it shows that the appointment of the petitioner was approved in the academic year 1993-94 and w.e.f. 14-7-1993 but on part time basis (pay scale of Rs. 700-1300). The said order further pointed out that the approval granted was till 30-4-1994. The resolution passed by the Respondent No. 1 Society on 20-6-1993 indicates that the Respondent No. 1 had resolved to appoint the petitioner in the academic year 1993-94 on the available part time post.
7. Thus, as per the record the petitioner’s contentions that he was initially appointed in the academic year 1991-92 and on probation by the management and as an Assistant Teacher under Respondent No. 4 is not proved. At the sametime the record supports the contentions of the petitioner that he worked under Respondent No. 4 School during the two academic years 1992-93 and 1993-94 and his appointment was approved during both these academic years. However, the record further confirms that the said appointment was on part time basis and the approval was also granted as a part timer and it was only restricted for the respective academic years. The plea taken by the management that the petitioner was not appointed in the academic year 1993-94 is contrary to the record. If the petitioner was not appointed on probation at any time and if he was not a full time teacher, obviously he could not claim to have attained the status of a permanent teacher. In the instant case the petitioner, as per the record, though was appointed during two consecutive academic years as noted above but not on full time basis and infact on part time basis. The approval orders passed by the Education Officer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Nashik support the plea of the management that the tenure of the petitioner in the academic year 1993-94 came to an end by efflux of time and there was no case of termination of service, leave alone the illegal termination of service. Though the School Tribunal has accepted the plea of the management that the orders issued by the Head Master were illegal and the Secretary had not signed the said orders, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was appointed in the academic years 1992-93 and 1993-94 only on part time basis. Consequently, the order of the School Tribunal dismissing the Appeal will have to be confirmed but for the reasons stated hereinabove. The findings recorded by the School Tribunal that the appellant was a part time teacher and was not appointed on probation cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
8. In the premises this petition fails and the same s hereby dismissed. Rule discharged but without any order as to costs.