Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for claiming deemed permanency the appointments to the posts of Shikshan 902-WP-10737-2019-WP-10645-2019.docx Sevaks as claimed by both the aforesaid teachers is required to be done in view of the Government Resolution dated 13 th October 2000 and has to be done in terms of Section 5 of the MEPS Act read with Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules. He submitted that in the present case procedure under Section 5 of the MEPS Act read with MEPS Rules is not followed; hence appointment of both teachers would be covered by the terms of appointment as temporary Shikshan Sevak.

14. In view of Rule 10 of MEPS Rules, the appointment of both teachers is on a temporary basis. In terms of Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(2), it is clear that both teachers were appointed on a temporary basis to fill a temporary vacancy and for a fixed period. He thus submitted that both the teachers were not entitled to claim deemed permanency as their appointments were not made in terms of the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the MEPS Act read with Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules.

15. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the case of Ramkrishna Chauhan vs. Seth D.M.High 902-WP-10737-2019-WP-10645-2019.docx School and Others3 and submitted that if a teacher is not been able to satisfy that the appointment is by following due process of due selection, the teacher is not entitled to claim deemed permanency. He, in particular, relied upon paragraphs 24, 26 and 28 of the said decision in support of his submission that sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act is only an enabling provision that, if management intends to fill up a permanent vacancy has to appoint a person duly qualified on probation for a period of two years.

29. It was Smita's contention that she time and again made representations to the management and also to the Education Officer for her appointment as a full time teacher on a regular basis; however, she was not given the appointment. In the process of appointment on a regular basis through advertisement, Smita was not selected. In the said process, when another candidate, Vandana Patil, was selected, Smita made a representation before the Deputy Director of Education, who directed management to appoint Smita. However, in a writ petition filed by Vandana Patil, the said direction is stayed. Thus, it is clear that Smita was never appointed on regular basis as per the prescribed procedure under Section 5 of MEPS Act read with Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules. Admittedly Smita's appointment is as Shikshan Sevak. Thus, the case of Smita is squarely covered by the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 902-WP-10737-2019-WP-10645-2019.docx the case of Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Hence, the termination of Smita cannot be termed as illegal and she is not entitled to reinstatement.

30. Aruna's appointment was temporary on CHB. She also participated in the appointment process initiated through an advertisement for filling up a vacant post after a teacher opted for VRS. However, she was not selected. Her appointment was approved on CHB. However, Aruna claimed to be working as a full time teacher and claimed to have been given a full workload. However, the record indicates that she was never appointed on a clear vacancy by following the prescribed procedure under Section 5 of the MEPS Act, read with Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Ramkrishna Chauhan, held that if an appointment is on a purely temporary basis, it cannot be assumed that the appointment is on probation for claiming deemed permanency by disregarding the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Ramkrishna Chauhan, held in paragraphs 24 and 28 as under;