R.K. Deshpande, J.@mdashRule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The School Tribunal, Nagpur, by its judgment and order dated 19-11-2014, has allowed Appeal No.STC-02/2006 filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 challenging the oral termination of the respondent No. 2-Narayan Wasudeo Meshram ("the employee") from the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 26-10-2005. The termination has been set aside and the Management is directed to reinstate the employee on the same post with continuity in service, but without payment of back wages. The Management has filed Writ Petition No. 7259 of 2014 challenging the order setting aside the termination of the employee and directing his reinstatement with continuity in service, whereas Writ Petition No. 4766 of 2015 has been preferred by the employee challenging the denial of back wages by the School Tribunal. Both these petitions are heard together.
3. There is no dispute that from 21-6-2000 to 26-10-2005, the employee was continuously in service and he was appointed by issuing the separate orders of appointment on year-to-year basis. The stand of the Management before the School Tribunal was that the employee was not possessing the requisite training qualification of B.Ed. and hence the temporary appointment on year-to-year basis does not give him any right of continuation in service. The School Tribunal has relied upon the Government Resolution dated 14-6-2010 and held that it is permissible to grant time to the teachers to acquire the training qualification up to 31-3-2015. The School Tribunal has further held that in view of the said Government Resolution, the employee needs to be protected in service, as he was a permanent employee appointed after following the due procedure of law.
4. Undisputedly, the basic qualification required for the appointment of Assistant Teacher or Shikshan Sevak is of graduate degree with training qualification. Undisputedly, B.Ed. is the training qualification, which was not possessed by the employee till his termination from service on 26-10-2005. The employee was, therefore, not qualified to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher or Shikshan Sevak. His initial appointment or subsequent appointments on year-to-year basis cannot, therefore, be construed as an appointment or continuation as a probationer.
5. The Government Resolution dated 14-6-2010 has been issued in terms of the First Proviso to Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, which is reproduced below :
"6. Qualifications of Teachers.
The minimum qualifications for the posts of teachers and the non-teaching staff in the primary schools, secondary schools, Junior Colleges and Junior Colleges of Education shall be as specified in Schedule "B":
Provided that, the Education Officer may allow Managements to appoint untrained Science graduate teachers for teaching Mathematics and Science subjects or untrained Arts or Commerce graduates for teaching other subjects in secondary schools in exceptional circumstances, such as non-availability of trained graduates. Such appointments shall, however, be allowed on an year to year basis, on the clear understanding that they shall have to obtain training qualification at their own cost and further subject to the condition that their services shall be liable for termination as soon as trained graduate teachers become available."
The First Proviso to Rule 6 of the MEPS Rules allows the Managements to appoint untrained Arts graduates for teaching the subjects in exceptional circumstances, such as non-availability of trained graduates. Such appointments have to be made on year-to-year basis on the clear understanding that they shall have to obtain training qualification at their own costs and further subject to the condition that their services shall be liable for termination as soon as trained graduate teachers become available.
6. The aforesaid Proviso merely enables the Managements with the permission of the Education Officer to appoint or continue untrained teachers on year-to-year basis, due to non-availability of trained graduates. The appointment of the employee in the present case being that of an untrained teacher on temporary, year-to-year basis, does not confer upon him any right to claim his appointment on probation or to claim protection in service in terms of the First Proviso to Rule 6 of the MEPS Rules read with the Government Resolution dated 14-6-2010. Shri Shende for the employee has urged that in terms of the Proviso to Rule 6, such appointment has to be continued till the trained graduate teacher becomes available. The Proviso operates at the discretion of the Management and the Education Officer and it makes it mandatory to terminate such appointment upon availability of a trained graduate teacher. This does not mean that it mandates the Management to continue untrained teachers for years together or confers legal right upon an employee to continue in service till he attains the training qualification. The School Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in setting aside the termination of the employee and directing his reinstatement with continuity in service.
7. In the result, the following order is passed :
Writ Petition No. 7259 of 2014 filed by the Management is allowed. The judgment and order dated 19-11-2014 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No.STC-02/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The said appeal is dismissed.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Consequently, Writ Petition No. 4766 of 2015 filed by the employee stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
