Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a trained graduate teacher appointed on 09.08.1984, was terminated on 06.05.1988. She challenged the termination before the School Tribunal, which granted a stay on 21.06.1988, in force until 13.12.1990. Meanwhile, respondent no.2 was appointed as an untrained teacher on 09.08.1984 and acquired B.Ed. in September 1987. On 13.12.1990, respondent no.2 was appointed as Headmistress. The petitioner claimed she was entitled to be promoted as Headmistress and filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on three grounds: (i) petitioner not available on establishment on the date of appointment of respondent no.2; (ii) petitioner had not made a claim for the post; (iii) appeal not maintainable as remedy lies under Rule 3(6) of MEPS Rules. The High Court held that the remedy under Rule 3(6) is for the management to seek approval, not for an employee; the employee's remedy is under Section 9. The Court also found that the petitioner was available on establishment due to the stay order and had made a claim. The petition was allowed, the Tribunal's order set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on merits.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Maintainability of Appeal - Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Rule 3(5) and Rule 3(6) of MEPS Rules, 1981 - The School Tribunal held that an aggrieved employee by appointment under Rule 3(5) has remedy to challenge such appointment before the Deputy Director under Rule 3(6) and hence appeal under Section 9 is not maintainable. The High Court held that the remedy under Rule 3(6) is for the management to seek approval, not for an employee to challenge appointment; the employee's remedy is under Section 9. (Paras 1, 3-5) B) Education Law - Availability on Establishment - Section 9 of MEPS Act - The Tribunal held that the petitioner was not available on the establishment on the date of appointment of respondent no.2 as Headmistress. The High Court noted that the petitioner was under a stay order from 21.06.1988 to 13.12.1990, and the appointment of respondent no.2 as Headmistress was on 13.12.1990, so the petitioner was available. (Paras 2, 6) C) Education Law - Claim for Promotion - Section 9 of MEPS Act - The Tribunal held that the petitioner had not made her claim on the post of Headmistress. The High Court found that the petitioner had made a claim for promotion to the post of Headmistress. (Paras 2, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act is maintainable against the appointment of a Headmistress under Rule 3(5) of the MEPS Rules, and whether the School Tribunal's findings on availability and claim are correct.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 30.09.2009, and remitted the matter to the School Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Maintainability of appeal under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
- Rule 3(5) and Rule 3(6) of MEPS Rules
- 1981
- availability on establishment
- claim for promotion
