Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Joya Vrushal Chaudhari, was initially appointed as a full-time Chemistry Teacher on an ad hoc basis in the unaided division of the 4th respondent Junior College for the academic year 2012-2013. Subsequently, in response to an advertisement dated 19th June 2015, she applied and was issued an appointment letter as a Full-time Chemistry Teacher on a temporary basis from 1st July 2015 to 7th November 2015, on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. Her contract was renewed annually with breaks of a few days between successive appointments, continuing until 30th April 2018. During this period, she performed duties ordinarily performed by full-time permanent teachers, including participating in prize distribution ceremonies, conducting cultural and extra-curricular activities, working on the Sports Committee, and serving as an examiner for the H.S.C examination. Despite this, the management failed to submit a proposal to the Education Department for approval of her services. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5250 of 2019 seeking directions to the management to send a proposal for approval. The Court, in the present petition, considered whether the management is obligated to submit a proposal for approval of the petitioner's services. The Court noted that the petitioner had worked continuously with artificial breaks and had a legitimate expectation of regularization. The Court held that the management cannot avoid its obligation to seek approval merely because the appointment was on an ad hoc basis. The Court directed the management to submit a proposal for approval of the petitioner's services to the Deputy Director of Education within four weeks, and the Deputy Director to consider and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks of receipt. The petition was allowed in these terms.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad Hoc Teacher - Approval of Services - The petitioner, appointed as a full-time Chemistry Teacher on ad hoc basis in the unaided division, worked continuously from 2015 to 2018 with artificial breaks of a few days. Despite performing duties of a permanent teacher, the management failed to submit a proposal for approval of her services to the Education Department. The Court held that the management cannot avoid its obligation to seek approval merely because the appointment was on ad hoc basis, and directed the management to submit a proposal for approval within four weeks. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Continuous Service - Break in Service - The petitioner's appointments were renewed annually with breaks of few days. The Court noted that these breaks were artificial and did not break the continuity of service. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation that her services would be regularized. The Court directed the Education Department to consider the proposal and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks of receipt. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was appointed as an ad hoc/temporary teacher and worked continuously with artificial breaks, is entitled to have her services approved by the Education Department, and whether the management is obligated to submit a proposal for such approval.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The 3rd and 4th respondents (management) are directed to submit a proposal for approval of the petitioner's services to the 2nd respondent (Deputy Director of Education) within four weeks from today. The 2nd respondent shall consider the proposal and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks of receipt. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Ad hoc appointment
- temporary teacher
- approval of services
- continuous service
- break in service
- legitimate expectation
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
