Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the judgment and order dated 14.01.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik in Appeal No.95 of 2016. The petitioner, a Shikshan Sevak, challenged the dismissal of her appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which had been filed against her termination order dated 12.09.2016. The petitioner claimed she possessed H.S.C., D.Ed., and belonged to N.T. Category. She was appointed to the post of Shikshan Sevak for a period of three years on probation on 15.10.2012, and completed probation on 14.10.2015. The management had earlier sent a letter dated 14.08.2012 to the Education Officer seeking permission to fill a vacant post arising from retirement of a teacher, but the Education Officer did not respond. Consequently, the management issued an advertisement on 03.10.2012 in daily newspaper Khandesh Gaurav, and after selection, appointed the petitioner. The proposal for approval was submitted belatedly, and on 07.09.2016, the Education Officer refused approval, citing that the proposal was forwarded in 2016 for a 2012 appointment and that surplus teacher absorption was in process. Relying on that communication, the management issued termination order dated 12.09.2016. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner failed to prove appointment followed due procedure and that no prior permission was obtained, and directed management to pay six months salary as compensation. In the writ petition, the petitioner argued that approval is only for salary release, and termination was not on grounds under Section 5(3) of the Act. The respondent Education Officer contended that permission could not be granted due to surplus teacher absorption directions and roster issues because petitioner belonged to N.T. Category. The Court noted that the Education Officer never decided the prior permission letter and raised new grounds only in reply, which could not be allowed. The Court relied on Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale and Shri Hiraji Natthurao Bangare, which held that services cannot be terminated solely on non-approval, as there is no provision in the Act of 1977 for such termination. The Court observed that prior permission lapse cannot be agitated for the first time when not a ground in refusal order. The excerpt provided ends mid-sentence in paragraph 13 before the final operative order; however, the reasoning strongly indicates the writ petition was being allowed, and the termination order was being set aside. The final decision is not explicitly available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Shikshan Sevak - Non-approval by Education Officer - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Sections 5(2), 5(3), 9 - The petitioner challenged termination order dated 12.09.2016 passed on the sole ground that the Education Officer refused approval to her appointment; the Court observed that there is no provision in the Act of 1977 for termination of services of a teacher on the ground that approval is not granted by the Education Officer; Held that services cannot be terminated solely for non-approval (Paras 7-12). B) Service Law - Prior Permission and Advertisement - Mandatory Compliance - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5(2) - The Education Officer failed to decide on management's prior permission letter dated 14.08.2012, leading management to advertise and appoint; the Education Officer cannot later contend prior permission absent when the refusal order did not cite that ground; Held that appointment not dehors Section 5(2) (Paras 10-11). C) Service Law - Roster and Surplus Teacher Absorption - Grounds for Refusal - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5 - The Education Officer raised roster and surplus teacher issues in reply before tribunal; since these were not grounds in the refusal communication dated 07.09.2016, they cannot be agitated for the first time; Held that new grounds cannot supplement refusal retrospectively (Paras 9-10). D) Precedent - Application of Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale v. Chairman, Kai Ramchandra Patil Shikshan Sanstha - Termination for Non-approval Invalid - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5 - The Court relied on precedent holding that termination solely for non-approval is impermissible and prior approval contention cannot be raised for the first time; Held that reliance on precedent supported petitioner's case (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the services of the petitioner could have been terminated on the sole ground of rejection or non-grant of approval by the Education Officer.
Law Points
- Approval by Education Officer is for release of salary and not validity of appointment
- no provision under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977 for termination of teacher on non-approval
- prior permission lapse cannot be raised for the first time when not a ground in refusal order
- management cannot terminate solely on Education Officer's refusal
- appointment not dehors Section 5(2) when Education Officer failed to decide prior permission request
- roster and surplus teacher issues cannot supplement refusal grounds retrospectively
