Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri and Others</B>

service - legality of appointment - article 226 of constitution of india - petitioner appointed for short term service - fact is that requirement of advertisement of appointment not complied - held, appointment illegal. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means..........well-known newspapers. in this state in almost every city a large number of 'farzi' and fake newspapers having little or no circulation have 'sprung up' whose only purpose is to create the impression that the vacancy, tender, notices etc. have been advertised so that if the matter goes to court, they can attempt to put up a defence in support of this illegality. all these matters have been discussed in s. k. dixit's case (supra) and it was held in that case that any such appointment or contract will be illegal unless it is advertised in two well-known newspapers having wide circulation.3. learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this court in special appeal no. 948 of 1995, ashika prasad shukla v. district inspector of schools, decided on 18.8.1998. i have carefully perused the division bench decision which has only held that radha raizada's case (supra), which has followed the decision in k. n. dwivedi v. district inspector of schools. 1994 (1) uplbec 461, will apply prospeclively. since k. n. dwivedi's case was decided on 13.1.1994. any appointment prior to 1994 will not be illegal even if the vacancy was not advertised in well-known newspapers. admittedly the petitioner was appointed in 1995, that is after the decision in k. n. dwivedi's case. hence the decision in radha raizada's case will clearly apply to this case. since the vacancy was not advertised in two well-known newspapers having wide circulation. the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. the petition is dismissed. however, the management may advertise the vacancy in two well-known newspapers having wide circulation and make the appointment thereafter in accordance with law. the petitioner may also apply against the said advertisement.