Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a challenge to the Maharashtra Education Department's rejection of approval for the petitioner's appointment as an English teacher in a junior college run by a private educational trust. The petitioner had been working on a temporary basis since 2014-2015, with annual renewals and breaks, though performing all duties of a permanent teacher. After the management failed to regularize his services, he filed Writ Petition No.5255 of 2019. During its pendency, his services were terminated, leading to protective orders from the High Court. On 22 February 2022, the High Court directed the management to submit a proposal for approval, treat his services as regular and permanent, and pay differential salary. The management submitted the proposal, but the Education Department rejected it on 12 May 2022, citing non-compliance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Rule 9 of the 1981 Rules, and a Government Resolution dated 23 June 2017 regarding the Pavitra Portal. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging that rejection. The core legal issues were whether the rejection was valid and what relief could be granted in light of the prior court order. The petitioner argued that the Pavitra Portal and recruitment ban did not apply retroactively and that the management's failures should not prejudice him. The State argued that the management had violated mandatory recruitment procedures. The court found no infirmity in the rejection order, holding that the management was solely responsible for the procedural lapses and could not shift the financial burden to the state exchequer. However, relying on its earlier order that recognized the petitioner's services as regular and permanent, the court directed the management to reinstate the petitioner and continue his services, bearing the entire salary expenditure from its own funds. The rule was made partially absolute in terms of the prayer for such relief, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Teacher Appointment Approval - Sections 4 and 5, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977; Rule 9, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The court held that the management failed to comply with statutory procedures for appointing the petitioner as English teacher, including prior permission, advertisement contents, reservation norms, and document submission; hence, the Education Department's rejection order dated 12 May 2022 was not infirm. However, based on the earlier court order declaring the petitioner's services to be treated as regular and permanent, the management was directed to reinstate the petitioner and pay salary from its own funds, without burdening the state exchequer. (Paras 11-14)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Relief Against Private Management - High Court's power under Article 226 - When a prior court order has recognized the teacher's services as regular and permanent, the High Court can direct the private management to continue the teacher in service and bear the salary, even if the state is justified in refusing approval due to management's lapses. The management, having failed to perform its statutory duties, cannot escape liability. (Paras 13-14)
C) Service Law - Temporary Appointments Treated as Regular - Effect of judicial orders - The court observed that despite temporary appointment letters, the management treated the petitioner as regular for all practical purposes and the court's earlier order confirmed this; thus, the management was estopped from discontinuing his services. (Paras 5-6, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's approval for his services by the Education Department was legal and justified, and what relief is the petitioner entitled to given the management's failure to follow statutory recruitment procedures.
Final Decision
The court found no infirmity in the rejection order dated 12 May 2022 due to management's lapses, but in view of the earlier order treating petitioner's services as regular and permanent, it directed respondents 3 and 4 (the educational trust and the college) to reinstate the petitioner on the post and continue to pay salary as per applicable scale, with the entire expenditure to be borne by the management, not the state exchequer. The rule was made partially absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Procedure for teacher appointment under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977 and Rules
- 1981
- effect of Government Resolutions on recruitment
- prior court order binding
- management liability for procedural lapses
- state not liable for salary when management fails to comply with statutory provisions
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (07) 120
Writ Petition No. 10762 of 2022
G. S. Patel, Neela Gokhale
Citation not available, 2023:BHC-AS:18967-DB
N. V. Bandiwadekar (Senior Advocate), Vinayak Kumbhar, P. J. Gavhane (AGP)
The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Director of Education (Mumbai Region), Vidyavardhini (Educational Trust), Annasaheb Vartak College of Arts, Kedarnath Malhotra College of Commerce & E.S. Andrades College of Science & Junior College (Through its Principal)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of approval for the petitioner's appointment as an English teacher in a private junior college.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the Education Department's order dated 12 May 2022 rejecting the proposal for approval of his services, and to direct the respondents to approve his appointment and release grant-in-aid for salary.
Filing Reason
The Education Department rejected the proposal for approval on grounds of non-compliance with the MEPS Act, Rules, and a Government Resolution regarding the Pavitra Portal, failure to follow reservation norms, and lack of supporting documents.
Previous Decisions
In Writ Petition No.5255 of 2019, the High Court by order dated 22 February 2022 directed the management to submit a proposal for approval, treat the petitioner's services as regular and permanent, and pay differential salary. The management submitted the proposal but it was rejected, leading to the present petition.
Issues
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's approval by the Education Department was valid given the management's procedural lapses.
What relief can be granted to the petitioner in light of the prior court order treating his services as regular and permanent.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Pavitra Portal and recruitment ban had no application as his appointment was prior to 2017; the management's failure cannot be attributed to him; the court had already directed his services to be treated as regular and permanent.
State argued that the management failed to follow statutory procedures under the MEPS Act and Rules, including seeking prior permission, proper advertisement, reservation compliance, and submission of necessary documents; the appointment was temporary and ad hoc.
Ratio Decidendi
Where the management of an educational institution failed to follow the statutory procedures for appointing a teacher, the State Education Department is justified in rejecting approval for the appointment. However, the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can direct the management to continue the teacher's services and pay salary from its own funds, particularly when the court had earlier declared the services to be treated as regular and permanent.
Judgment Excerpts
In its Order of 22nd February 2022, this Court made specific observations such as firstly, even though the appointment letters indicate the appointment to be purely on temporary basis, for all practical purposes, the appointment was treated by the Management as regular and permanent appointment;
the Management could not have published the advertisement without prior approval. Even the contents of the advertisement are not as per the provisions of the MEPS Act.
we do not find the Education Department to be blameworthy for the plight of the Petitioner. The entire chaos is the doing or rather failure to act on the part of the Management.
we have no hesitation in directing the Management to reinstate and continue the services of the Petitioner on the post and bear the entire expenditure of his salary.
Procedural History
The petitioner was first appointed as a temporary English teacher in the 4th respondent junior college for the year 2014-2015. After responding to an advertisement dated 19th June 2015, he was appointed on a temporary basis from 1st July 2015 to 7th November 2015, with a consolidated monthly salary. His contract was renewed annually with breaks until 30th April 2018. He performed all duties of a permanent teacher. The management failed to submit a proposal for approval of his services, leading him to file Writ Petition No.5255 of 2019. During its pendency, the management terminated his services; the court passed protective orders restraining the management from filling the post and directing payment of salary. By order dated 22nd February 2022, the court directed the management to submit a proposal for approval within four weeks and directed the Education Department to decide it, while also directing the management to pay differential salary. The management submitted the proposal, but it was rejected on 12th May 2022 on various grounds of non-compliance with statutory provisions. The petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition No.10762 of 2022 challenging that rejection. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 26th June 2023, and pronounced it on 11th July 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 4, Section 5
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 9
