LOKSHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR.
A
v.
RAJENDRA KUMAR AJABRAO MAHALLE AND ORS.
MAY 5, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
B
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Alticle 226-Writ petition-Stay of impugned orde,-..Education Depmt-
ment of State of Maharashtra-Appointment given for one academic session C
specifically mentioning in the letter of appointment that at the end of the
session, services would stand tenninated without notice-Inf ollowing year no
appointments made-Appellant approaching Tlibunal for continuation of
service-Tribunal held tennination illegal-Wlit petition by State-High Coult
vacated the order of sttIJHeld, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is clearly
unwan-anted-The case was clearly for the stay of order of the Tribunal D
pending disposal of writ petition-Order of High Coult set aside-Writ petition
to be di;posed of expeditiously-:-Service Law-Appointment for fixed period.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civii Appeal No. 3619 of
1997.
From the .Judgment and Order dated 19.2.97 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 3520 of 1995.
A.K. Sanghi for the Appellants.
E
V.A. Mohta, Pramit Saxena and S.V. Deshpande for the Respon-
F
dents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the interim order passed by
the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, made on February 19, 1997 in
Writ Petition No. 3520/95.
The respondent was appointed on July 9, 1992 for a period of one
G
year. The appointment order read as under :
H
89
A
B
c
90
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1997]SUPP.1S.C.R.
"Your appointment is purely temporary for a period of one year
from 9.7.92 to end of Session, in the leave/deputation/vacancy.
After expiry of the above period your services shall stand ter-
minated without any notice."
Subsequently, no appointment was given to the respondent as indi-
cated in the order of the Division Deputy Director of Education (Genl.),
dated May 19, 1994 sent on May 21, 1995 which reads as under :
"That due to refusal of sanction and provisions from the State
Government for the year 1993-94, no sanction was granted for any
class on grant-in-aid basis.· Information to all Heads of Schools
should be sent through Deputy Director of Education, Education
Officer (Secondary) and Education Inspectors, Bombay."
Thus, it could be seen that for the year 1993-94, no appointment
came to be made. The respondent filed an appeal in the Tribunal for
D directions. The Tribunal held that he had been appointed against a per-
manent vacancy and the Head Master had no authority to pass an order
of termination. In the face of the appointment order, such finding recorded
by the Tribunal is clearly unwarranted. When a writ petition was filed
seeking suspension of the order, the High Court vacated the order of stay
made in the impugned order. In the aforestated facts, the case was clearly
E for the stay of Tribunal order pending disposal of the writ petition.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court
stands set aside. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition
as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
F R.P.
Appeal allowed.
/,
>..
\
Lex