Sunil v. The Jalgaon Municipal Council

Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.4 and 5. .......................... N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2009. COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) :

By way of present appeals, the appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, dated 24th June 2009, thereby dismissing the petitions filed by the present appellants.

The appellants were appointed as School Teachers in the school run by the erstwhile Jalgaon Municipal Council, now Jalgaon Municipal Corporation. The appointments were made vide resolution dated 22nd December 1997. It is the contention of the petitioners, that subsequently, on year to year basis, they were continued in service. However, it appears that the services of the petitioners were terminated on on 11th January 2000. Due to the intervention of the Collector, the resolution terminating their services was suspended. Subsequently, the Collector upheld the order of termination. Aggrieved thereby, the (4) petitioners preferred appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. The said appeals were dismissed. The revision applications filed by the petitioners before the State Government were also dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners (present appellants) had preferred Writ Petitions before this court. The learned Single Judge of this court has dismissed the Writ Petitions by a common order. Hence, the present appeals.

Ms. Surekha Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that in view of the note appearing in Chapter III of the Secondary School Code, the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (For short, hereinafter referred to as "the MEPS Act") are applicable to the service conditions of the Teachers working in the schools run by the Municipal Council and the terminations, without following the procedure prescribed under the MEPS Act, were not permissible.

Sub-Section 1 of Section 3 of the MEPS Act reads thus : " The provisions of this Act shall apply to all private schools in the State of Maharashtra, whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. " It can thus be clearly seen that the Act is applicable to the private schools, whether aided or unaided in the State of Maharashtra. "Private School" is defined as a recognised school established or administered by (5) a Management, other than the Government or a local authority. As such, the provisions of the MEPS Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

On merits, it can be seen that the appointments of the appellants were purely on temporary basis and that too, by a resolution of the Municipal Council. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants was not in a position to place any documents on record which would show that the services of the appellants were approved by the competent authority. On the contrary, Mr. P.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, has pointed out the orders passed by the Education Officer vide which the approval to the appointments of the appellants were rejected way back on 4th February 2000 on the ground that there was a backlog of the backward classes and as such, the appointments of the appellants could not be approved.

The learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed that the entry of the appellants was a back door entry. It has further been found that the termination was at the instance of the Collector who found that the appointments of the appellants were not in accordance with law and as such, the Collector was competent enough to invoke powers under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. It has further been found that neither prior to the appointment, there was permission from the competent authority under the municipal administration nor subsequent to the appointment, approval was granted by the Director of Municipal Administration. (6)

In that view of the matter, no error could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge, so as to warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/lpa145etc