Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sayas s/o Nagnath Surnar, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by Respondent No. 3 Management on 11.06.2011 and posted at Respondent No. 4 School. He possessed HSC and D.Ed. qualifications at the time of appointment. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur (Respondent No. 2) granted approval to his appointment on non-aided basis on 20.04.2012. In the year 2012-2013, the school started receiving 20% grant-in-aid. The petitioner successfully completed his probation period. However, on 26.06.2019, the Education Officer passed an order discontinuing the petitioner's salary on the ground that he did not possess D.Ed. qualification as per the grant-in-aid conditions. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that his appointment was prior to the grant and was duly approved, and the grant conditions cannot be applied retrospectively. The respondents contended that the petitioner did not fulfill the qualification requirements for grant-in-aid. The court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and unsustainable. The court observed that the petitioner's appointment was made and approved before the school received grant-in-aid, and the grant conditions cannot be applied retrospectively to discontinue the salary of an already approved teacher. The court quashed and set aside the order dated 26.06.2019 and directed the respondents to continue the salary of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. The court also directed that the petitioner be paid his salary regularly from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Teacher Appointment - Approval - Grant-in-Aid - Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher on 11.06.2011 with HSC and D.Ed. qualifications, approved on non-aided basis on 20.04.2012. School started receiving 20% grant-in-aid from 2012-2013. Education Officer passed order on 26.06.2019 discontinuing salary of petitioner on ground that he did not possess D.Ed. qualification as per grant-in-aid conditions. Held that the order was arbitrary and unsustainable as the petitioner's appointment was prior to grant and approved, and the grant conditions cannot be applied retrospectively to discontinue salary of an already approved teacher. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Grant-in-Aid - Conditions - Retrospective Application - The Education Officer cannot impose grant-in-aid conditions retrospectively on appointments made and approved prior to the school receiving grant. The petitioner's appointment was valid and approved on non-aided basis, and the subsequent grant does not automatically entitle the management to replace him with a D.Ed. qualified teacher. (Paras 11-15) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - The High Court can quash an order that is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 26.06.2019 was quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to continue the salary of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer can discontinue salary of a teacher whose appointment was approved on non-aided basis prior to the school receiving grant-in-aid, on the ground that the teacher does not possess D.Ed. qualification as per the grant-in-aid conditions.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad Latur is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to continue the salary of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher working with Respondent No. 4 School. The petitioner shall be paid his salary regularly from the date of this order.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
- Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act
- 1961
- Grant-in-Aid Code
- Right to Education Act
- 2009
