http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SK. KALEEM SK. GULAM NABI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Since respondent  No.1, it  is reported, has refused to receive the  notice, it  must be  deemed  to  be  sufficient notice. Respondent  Nos.5 and  7 have  been served. But they are appearing nether in person nor through counsel.      Leave granted.      Since the  respondents are  appearing neither in person nor through  counsel, we  have taken  the assistance of Shri Deshpande, learned  counsel appearing for the appellants and gone through  the relevant  rules and orders of appointment. The admitted  position is  that respondent  No.1 came  to be appointed on  June 10, 1992 against a clear vacancy with the following stipulation :      "Your   appointment    is    purely      temporary for a period of 11 months      from 11.6.1992  to 10.5.1993 in the      clear vacancy.  After expiry of the      above  period  your  service  shall      stand   terminated    without   any      notice."      Thus, it  could be  seen that  the appointment  of  the first respondent  was only a temporary appointment against a clear vacancy. The appointments are against a clear vacancy. The  appointments   are  regulated  and  controlled  by  the provisions of  the Maharashtra  Employees of  Private School (Conditions of  Service) Regulation  Act, 1977. Section 5 of the Act postulates as under :      "5.  Certain    Obligations      of      Managements of Private Schools      (1)  The Management  shall as  soon      as  possible  fill  in  the  manner      prescribed every  permanent vacancy      in a  private school by appointment      of a  person duly qualified to fill      in such vacancy.           Providing  that,  unless  such      vacancy  is  to  be  filled  in  by      promotion,  the  Management  shall,      before proceeding  to fill  in such      vacancy,   ascertain    from    the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    Educational   Inspector,    greater      Bombay, or  as the case may be, the      Education   any   suitable   person      available on  the list  of  surplus      persons  maintained   by  him   for      absorption in other schools; and in      the  event  of  such  person  being      available,  the   Management  shall      appoint   that   person   in   such      vacancy.      (2)  Every person appointed to fill      a permanent  vacancy  shall  be  on      probation  for   a  period  of  two      years. Subject to the provisions of      sub-section (4)  and (5), he shall,      on  completion  of  this  probation      period of  two years,  be deemed to      have been confirmed.      (3)  If  in   the  opinion  of  the      Management, the  work or  behaviour      of  any   probationer,  during  the      period of  his  probation,  is  not      satisfactory,  the  Management  may      terminate his  services at any time      during the said period after giving      him one  month’s notice,  or salary      of one month in lieu of notice.      (4)  If   the   services   of   any      probationer  are  terminated  under      sub-section   (3)    and   he    is      reappointed by  the  Management  in      the same school or any other school      belonging to  it within a period of      one year  from which  his  services      were terminated, then the period of      probation    undergone    by    him      previously  shall   be  taken  into      consideration  in  calculating  the      required period  of  probation  for      the purposes of sub-section (2).      (4A) Nothing in  sub-sections  (2),      (3) or  (4) shall  apply to  person      appointed  to   fill  a   permanent      vacancy   by    promotion   or   by      absorption as  provided  under  the      proviso to sub-section (1).      (5)  The  Management  may  fill  in      every    temporary    vacancy    by      appointing a  person duly qualified      to fill  such vacancy. The order of      appointment shall  be drawn  up  in      the  form   -  prescribed  in  that      behalf, and  shall state the period      of appointment of such person."      In view  of the above and the order of appointment, the appointment of  the respondent  was purely  temporary for  a limited  period.   Obviously,  the  approval  given  by  the competent authority  was for  that temporary appointment. As regards permanent  appointments, they  are regulated by sub- sections (1)  and (2)  of Section  5 of the Act according to which the Management shall, as soon as possible, fill up, in the manner  prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by  appointment of a person duly qualified to fill in such vacancy.  Every person  of two  years  subject  to  the provisions  of   sub-section  (4)  and  (5).  He  shall,  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

completion of  the probation  of period  of  two  years,  be confirmed.      Under  these  circumstances,  the  appointment  of  the respondent  cannot   be  considered   to  be   a   permanent appointment. As  a consequence,  the direction issued by the High Court  in the  impugned judgment dated July 31, 1996 in writ petition  No.5821/95 that he was regularly appointed is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.      The appeal  is, accordingly,  allowed. The order of the High Court  stands reversed  and the  Writ  Petition  stands allowed. No costs.