Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajashree Shikshan Sanstha, a school management, challenged the judgment dated 13.12.2016 of the School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No.32/2002. The Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal of respondent No.1, Ananta Titarmare, a teacher who was terminated from service. The teacher was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a temporary basis from 20.7.1999 to 30.4.2000, and his engagement was extended for the academic years 2000-2001 and up to 31.3.2002. By a communication dated 1.4.2002, he was informed that his services would end on 1.5.2002. He challenged his termination before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The Tribunal framed issues and held that the teacher had not proved that his appointment was made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act, and that the termination order was not illegal. However, the Tribunal directed the management to pay six months' salary to the teacher under Section 11(2)(e) of the MEPS Act and Rs.10,000 as costs of litigation. The management filed the present writ petition. The High Court noted that the teacher had worked for about 2 years and 10 months on a temporary basis. The Court observed that the Tribunal had found that the management had not complied with Section 5 of the MEPS Act. The High Court held that the order of the Tribunal was not perverse or illegal and declined to interfere. The writ petition was dismissed, and the management was directed to comply with the Tribunal's order within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Teacher - Termination - Section 5, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The School Tribunal held that the appellant (teacher) failed to prove that his appointment was made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act, and that the termination order dated 1.4.2002 was not illegal. (Paras 3-4)
B) Service Law - Compensation - Section 11(2)(e), Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Despite upholding the termination, the School Tribunal directed the petitioner (management) to pay six months' salary and Rs.10,000 as costs to the teacher. The High Court upheld this order, noting that the teacher had worked for about 2 years and 10 months and that the management had not complied with Section 5. (Paras 2, 5-6)
C) Service Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Tribunal Order - The High Court declined to interfere with the School Tribunal's order, finding no perversity or illegality. The petition was dismissed. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal's order directing payment of six months' salary and costs to a temporary teacher, despite upholding the termination as not illegal, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the School Tribunal's order. The management was directed to comply with the order within four weeks.
Law Points
- Temporary teacher
- termination
- Section 5 MEPS Act
- Section 11(2)(e) MEPS Act
- compensation
- School Tribunal
- writ petition
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 151
Writ Petition No.7946/2017
Shri P.N. Shende for petitioner, Shri M.B. Turankar for respondent No.1, Shri A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for respondent No.2
Rajashree Shikshan Sanstha
Ananta S/o Nilkantha Titarmare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal directing payment of six months' salary and costs to a temporary teacher.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (school management) sought to quash the School Tribunal's order directing payment of six months' salary and Rs.10,000 costs to the teacher.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the School Tribunal's order dated 13.12.2016 which partly allowed the teacher's appeal and directed payment of six months' salary and costs.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal, Chandrapur, initially allowed the teacher's appeal on 21.10.2003, but this Court set aside that judgment in Writ Petition No.4775/2003 and remitted the matter. Thereafter, the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 10.3.2005. The teacher then approached this Court, which remitted the matter again, leading to the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2016.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal's order directing payment of six months' salary and costs to a temporary teacher, despite upholding the termination as not illegal, is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner (management) argued that the teacher was a temporary employee and his termination was not illegal, so no compensation should be payable.
The respondent (teacher) contended that he had worked for about 2 years and 10 months and the management had not complied with Section 5 of the MEPS Act, hence the compensation was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The School Tribunal's order under Section 11(2)(e) of the MEPS Act directing payment of six months' salary and costs to a temporary teacher, despite upholding the termination as not illegal, is not perverse or illegal, especially when the management had not complied with Section 5 of the Act. The High Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.12.2016 delivered by the School Tribunal, Nagpur by which, Appeal No.32/2002 filed by respondent No.1 - original appellant, has been partly allowed...
It was held that the appellant has not proved that his appointment was made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act. It was also held that the termination order dated 1.4.2002 w.e.f. 1.5.2002, was not illegal and was not contrary to law.
The record reveals that the appeal preferred by the appellant was earlier allowed by a judgment dated 21.10.2003 by the School Tribunal, Chandrapur. In Writ Petition No.4775/2003, this Court set aside the said judgment and remitted the matter.
Procedural History
The teacher filed Appeal No.32/2002 before the School Tribunal, Chandrapur, which was initially allowed on 21.10.2003. The management challenged this in Writ Petition No.4775/2003, and this Court set aside the judgment and remitted the matter. The School Tribunal then dismissed the appeal on 10.3.2005. The teacher approached this Court again, which remitted the matter to the School Tribunal, Nagpur, which delivered the impugned judgment on 13.12.2016, partly allowing the appeal. The management then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 5, Section 9, Section 11(2)(e)
