Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Priti Rakesh Patil, 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 2013-2014. Subsequently, she applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 19th June 2015 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. Despite discharging duties regularly, including teaching Std. 11 and 12 classes, working as an examiner for H.S.C examinations, and performing other work ordinarily done by permanent teachers, her services were not made permanent because the Management failed to submit a proposal for approval to the Education Department. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5251 of 2019 seeking directions to the Management to send a proposal for approval and to the Education Department to grant approval and release grant-in-aid for salary. During the pendency of that petition, the Management terminated her services. The Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition No.10753 of 2022 challenging the termination and seeking similar relief. The Court considered the issue of whether the Petitioner, as an ad hoc teacher with breaks, was entitled to approval and salary. The Court noted that the breaks were artificial and the Petitioner had continuously worked, performing duties of a permanent teacher. The Court held that the Management's failure to submit a proposal was unjustified and directed the Management to submit a proposal for approval within four weeks. The Education Department was directed to decide the proposal within eight weeks thereafter. Upon approval, the Petitioner was to be paid salary from the date of approval, and the Management was directed to pay salary for the period prior to approval. The Court allowed the petition and made the rule absolute.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad Hoc Teacher - Approval of Services - Section 5, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The Petitioner, appointed as a full-time Chemistry Teacher on ad hoc basis with annual breaks, sought directions to the Management to submit a proposal for approval of her services to the Education Department and for the Department to grant approval and release grant-in-aid. The Court held that the Management's failure to submit a proposal for approval was unjustified, and the Petitioner was entitled to have her services considered for approval, as she had continuously worked and performed duties of a permanent teacher. The Court directed the Management to submit a proposal within four weeks and the Education Department to decide it within eight weeks thereafter. (Paras 1-8) B) Service Law - Temporary Teacher - Salary and Grant-in-Aid - Section 3, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The Petitioner worked from 2015 to 2018 on temporary contracts with breaks, but the Court noted that the breaks were artificial and the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation of permanency. The Court directed that upon approval, the Petitioner be paid salary from the date of approval, and the Management was directed to pay salary for the period prior to approval. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner, an ad hoc teacher appointed on temporary basis with breaks, is entitled to approval of her services and grant-in-aid salary from the State Education Department, and whether the Management's failure to submit a proposal for approval is justified.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Management (Respondent No.4) to submit a proposal for approval of the Petitioner's services to the Education Department within four weeks. The Education Department (Respondent No.2) was directed to decide the proposal within eight weeks thereafter. Upon approval, the Petitioner was to be paid salary from the date of approval, and the Management was directed to pay salary for the period prior to approval. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Ad hoc appointment
- temporary teacher
- approval of services
- grant-in-aid
- salary
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
- Section 5
- Section 3
- break in service
- continuous service
- legitimate expectation
