Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Miss Sonali Mallikarjun Bedgnur, was appointed as an assistant teacher by respondent no.1, Dnyansampada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, pursuant to an advertisement dated 2 June 2007. The advertisement sought to fill several teaching posts, including three D.Ed. posts, one of which was reserved for the Nomadic Tribe (NT) category. The petitioner, who belonged to the NT category and was untrained, applied and was appointed as no other candidate from the reserved category was available. Her appointment was subject to the condition that she would acquire the D.Ed. qualification within five years, as per Government Resolution dated 20 April 2000. However, the petitioner failed to acquire the qualification within the stipulated period, leading to her removal from service. She challenged her removal before the School Tribunal, Solapur, under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The Tribunal dismissed her appeal by judgment and order dated 22 April 2019. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the facts and noted that the petitioner was appointed against a reserved post for which no other candidate was available. The court held that the condition of acquiring D.Ed. within five years was not applicable to her appointment as it was a special case of appointment against a reserved post. The court observed that the management could not have imposed such a condition and that the petitioner's removal was unjustified. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Untrained Teacher - Reserved Category - The petitioner, an untrained teacher belonging to NT category, was appointed against a D.Ed. reserved post as no other candidate was available, subject to acquiring D.Ed. within five years as per Government Resolution dated 20 April 2000. The School Tribunal dismissed her appeal against removal for non-compliance. The High Court held that the condition to acquire qualification within five years was not applicable to her appointment as she was appointed against a reserved post and the management could not have imposed such condition. The removal was set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Section 9 - Appeal - The School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without considering that the petitioner's appointment was against a reserved post and the condition of acquiring D.Ed. within five years was not applicable. The High Court allowed the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the removal of the petitioner from service for not acquiring the D.Ed. qualification within five years was justified, given that she was appointed against a reserved NT category post and no other candidate was available.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order of the School Tribunal dated 22 April 2019, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Appointment of untrained teacher against reserved post
- condition to acquire qualification within five years
- removal for non-compliance
- applicability of MEPS Act
- Section 9 appeal
- Article 227 jurisdiction
