Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vaishali Ukha Patil, was appointed as a full-time Mathematics teacher at Annasaheb Vartak College of Arts, Kedarnath Malhotra College of Commerce & E.S. Andrades College of Science & Junior College (4th respondent) on a temporary basis from 1st July 2015 to 7th November 2015, following an advertisement in Daily Loksatta. Her contract was renewed annually with short breaks until 30th April 2018. Despite performing duties equivalent to permanent teachers, including teaching Std. 11 and 12, serving on committees, and acting as an examiner for H.S.C. examinations, the management failed to submit a proposal to the education department for approval of her services. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5253 of 2019 seeking directions for the management to send a proposal and for the education department to grant approval and release grant-in-aid. During the pendency of that petition, the management terminated her services on 30th April 2018. The court in that petition directed the management to allow her to continue and to send a proposal. The management complied, but the Deputy Director of Education rejected the proposal on 21st December 2021, citing that the appointment was not through the proper channel and that the petitioner was not appointed against a clear vacancy. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging this rejection. The court considered the arguments: the petitioner contended that she was appointed following due procedure and worked continuously, while the respondents argued that the appointment was temporary and not approved. The court held that the management's failure to submit a proposal cannot prejudice the petitioner, and that the Deputy Director's rejection was unsustainable. The court quashed the rejection order and directed the Deputy Director to approve the petitioner's appointment within four weeks, with the management to pay salary from the date of approval. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Temporary Teachers - Duty of Management - The management of an educational institution cannot deprive a teacher of the benefits of regularisation by failing to submit a proposal for approval to the education department. The court held that the petitioner, who worked continuously as a full-time teacher from 2015 to 2018, is entitled to have her services approved and regularised. (Paras 1-8) B) Education Law - Approval of Appointment - Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The court directed the Deputy Director of Education to consider and approve the petitioner's appointment within four weeks, and the management to pay salary from the date of approval. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a temporary teacher continuously employed from 2015 to 2018, is entitled to approval of her appointment and regularisation of services despite the management's failure to submit a proposal to the education department.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 21st December 2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, and directed the Deputy Director to approve the petitioner's appointment within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The management was directed to pay salary to the petitioner from the date of approval. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Regularisation of temporary teachers
- approval of appointment by education department
- duty of management to submit proposal
- entitlement to salary and benefits
- interpretation of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
