Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the rejection of approval of appointments and subsequent termination of two teachers, petitioners, by the Rajiv Gandhi High School (respondent no. 1) and its management (respondent no. 2), after the Education Inspector (respondent no. 3) refused approval on the ground that the teachers held a B.Ed degree whereas the posts were reserved for D.Ed candidates. The school, initially running on a non-grant basis, received grant-in-aid for the first time in the academic year 2004-05. Petitioner no. 1, holding a B.Sc. B.Ed, was appointed on 28 May 2004 in the Marathi medium school, and his services were terminated on 30 March 2005 following the rejection order dated 14 March 2005. Petitioner no. 2, holding a B.A. B.Ed, had been appointed on 19 July 1997 and formally as an Assistant Teacher from 20 April 1998; his services were also terminated on 30 March 2005 after the same rejection. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection orders and seeking quashing of the termination. During the pendency of the petition, an ad-interim order dated 2 May 2005 restrained the respondents from terminating their services, which was continued on 27 June 2005. Petitioner no. 1 retired by superannuation while the matter was pending. The core legal issue was whether the Education Officer could lawfully reject approval solely because the teachers held a B.Ed instead of a D.Ed qualification, given that the Government Resolution dated 11 November 2011, Clause (b), permitted teachers with B.Ed appointed in excess of the 25% quota on posts reserved for D.Ed candidates before that date to be treated as trained teachers from their initial appointments. The petitioners relied on the unreported judgment of the same High Court in Mrs. Medha Deepak Khobrekar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 6035 of 2013), where the court had interpreted the same Government Resolution and held that such teachers were eligible for approval. The management agreed to dispose of the petition in line with that precedent. The court, after examining the Government Resolution and the earlier judgment, found that the rejection orders were unsustainable. It held that on a plain reading of Clause (b) of the Resolution, all teachers holding B.Ed and appointed in excess of the quota on D.Ed reserved posts prior to 11 November 2011 were eligible to be considered as trained teachers from their initial appointment dates. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection orders, and directed the Education Officer to grant approval to the petitioners from their initial dates of appointment within four weeks. The management was ordered to compute and submit pay bills as per B.Ed pay-scale from the date of termination, and the Education Officer was to release the due amounts within eight weeks thereafter. Petitioner no. 1, having retired, was held entitled to the difference in pay and all consequential benefits till his superannuation, along with pension and other retirement benefits. The contempt petition was dismissed as not pressed, and rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. The judgment thus affirmed that prior B.Ed appointees on D.Ed reserved posts are entitled to regularization under the 2011 Government Resolution.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Education - Teachers' Appointment and Approval - Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 11 November 2011, Clause (b) - Teachers with B.Ed. qualification appointed in excess of 25% quota on posts reserved for D.Ed. candidates prior to the GR are eligible for approval and seniority from initial appointment - Court followed Medha Deepak Khobrekar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 6035 of 2013 - Held rejection solely on ground of not holding D.Ed. was illegal; directed Education Officer to grant approval from initial appointment and Management to compute back wages, with retired petitioner entitled to difference in pay and pension (Paras 10-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer's rejection of approval for the appointment of teachers holding a B.Ed degree on posts reserved for D.Ed candidates was valid in light of the Government Resolution dated 11 November 2011 and the precedent in Medha Deepak Khobrekar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed; orders rejecting approval set aside; Education Officer directed to grant approval to the petitioners from their initial date of appointment within four weeks; Management to compute and submit pay bills as per B.Ed pay-scale from date of termination within eight weeks; Education Officer to release due amounts within eight weeks thereafter; Petitioner No. 1, having retired, entitled to difference in pay, consequential benefits till retirement, and pension and other retirement benefits; Contempt Petition dismissed as not pressed; Rule made absolute; no costs.
Law Points
- Government Resolution dated 11 November 2011
- Clause (b)
- permits B.Ed qualified teachers appointed in excess of 25% quota on D.Ed reserved posts prior to that date to be considered as trained teachers from initial appointment
- such teachers are eligible for approval and seniority from date of initial appointment
