Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between Hashmiya Bahrul Faiz Social Welfare Association (the Petitioner), which runs a D.Ed. College for girls in Solapur, and Abdullah M. Shukur Qureshi (Respondent No.1), who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the college. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) before the School Tribunal at Pune, alleging harassment and illegal termination by the management. The Petitioner and the Principal (Respondent No.2) opposed the appeal, arguing that Respondent No.1 was not qualified and was habitually absent. The School Tribunal, after considering evidence, allowed the appeal on 21 April 2015, directing reinstatement. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. A learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Full Bench to decide the preliminary issue of whether a D.Ed. College falls within the definition of 'School' under the MEPS Act, and consequently whether the School Tribunal had jurisdiction. The Full Bench, comprising Justices Nitin Jamdar, Nitin W. Sambre, and Abhay Ahuja, answered the reference in the affirmative, holding that a D.Ed. College is a 'School' under Section 2(24) of the MEPS Act, and the School Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 9. The Court reasoned that the definition of 'School' is broad and includes institutions imparting education up to higher secondary level, and teachers' training institutions like D.Ed. Colleges are covered under the Act's scheme. The Court also noted that the School Tribunal had correctly found that Respondent No.1 was illegally terminated and had directed reinstatement. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Jurisdiction of School Tribunal - Definition of 'School' - Section 2(24) and Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 - The issue was whether a D.Ed. College is a 'School' under the Act, and whether the School Tribunal has jurisdiction over appeals by teachers of such colleges. The Full Bench held that a D.Ed. College is a 'School' as defined under Section 2(24) of the MEPS Act, and therefore the School Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 9 to entertain appeals from teachers of such colleges. The Court reasoned that the definition of 'School' includes institutions imparting education up to higher secondary level and also includes teachers' training institutions like D.Ed. Colleges, as they are covered under the Act's scheme. (Paras 1-10) B) Education Law - Termination of Services - Illegal Termination - Section 9 of the MEPS Act - The School Tribunal found that the teacher was illegally terminated and directed reinstatement. The Full Bench upheld this finding, confirming that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass such orders. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a D.Ed. College is a 'School' under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977, and consequently whether the School Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act to entertain an appeal by a teacher of such college.
Final Decision
The Full Bench answered the reference in the affirmative, holding that a D.Ed. College is a 'School' under Section 2(24) of the MEPS Act, and the School Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 9. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the School Tribunal's order dated 21 April 2015 directing reinstatement of Respondent No.1.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of School Tribunal
- Definition of School under MEPS Act
- D.Ed. College as School
- Section 9 MEPS Act
- Section 2(24) MEPS Act
