Bombay High CourtWP/5289/2017dismissedrule discharged

Soma Chandrabhan Sakhare v. Tathagat Education Trust, Bhandara And Others Thr. Secretary Shri. N.P. Borkar

2019-02-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp5289.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5289/2017 Soma Chandrabhan Sakhare ..Vs..

Tathagat Education Trust, Lakhandur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.A. Ashirgade, Addl.G.P. for respondent No.4. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 15.2.2019.

The petitioner was appointed in the institution administered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 during the academic sessions 1985-1986, 1986-1987, 1987-1988, 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 as Teacher in junior college. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was not having the training (B.Ed.) qualifications and, therefore, his appointment was for session. According to the petitioner, he acquired training qualifications on 14th July, 1992 and then he was appointed on 20th July, 1992 for the academic session 1992 - 1993. As the services of petitioner came to an end on 30th April 1993, he approached the Tribunal contending that his termination w.e.f. 30th April, 1993 was illegal. The Tribunal found that the appointment of petitioner on 20th July, 1992 was without following procedure prescribed by Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The petitioner has not been able

2 wp5289.17 to show that this finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the facts. The petitioner has not been able to show that his appointment in the session 1992-1993 was made as per the prescribed procedure.

Hence, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any illegality by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.