Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bhartiya Shikshan Sanstha and its Headmistress, challenged an order of the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, which allowed the appeal of respondent No.1, a teacher, and set aside his termination. The teacher claimed he was appointed on 1.7.1990 and his termination was illegal. The Tribunal accepted his contention and held that his appointment was under Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and his termination violated Rules 33 to 37 of the 1981 Rules. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal failed to frame and decide three preliminary issues mandated by the Division Bench in Anna Manikrao Pethe v. Presiding Officer: (i) whether the school was recognised, (ii) whether the appointment was made as per Section 5 of the Act, and (iii) whether the appointment was approved by the Education Officer. The High Court agreed, noting that the Tribunal's order did not address these issues. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after framing and deciding the preliminary issues. The court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh within six months, with the parties to appear on 25.1.2010.
Headnote
A) Service Law - School Tribunal - Preliminary Issues - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5 - The School Tribunal is duty bound to frame and decide three preliminary issues: (i) whether the school is a recognised school under the Act, (ii) whether the teacher's appointment was made as per Section 5 of the Act and Rules, and (iii) whether such appointment was approved by the Education Officer. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. (Paras 4-5) B) Service Law - Termination of Teacher - Validity - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Rules 33 to 37 of 1981 - The Tribunal's finding that termination was not in consonance with Rules 33 to 37 was set aside because the preliminary issues regarding appointment validity were not decided. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal's order allowing the teacher's appeal was sustainable when it failed to frame and decide the preliminary issues mandated by the Division Bench in Anna Manikrao Pethe v. Presiding Officer.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the School Tribunal dated 8.4.2002, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal was directed to frame and decide the three preliminary issues as per Anna Manikrao Pethe v. Presiding Officer and then decide the appeal afresh within six months. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 25.1.2010.
Law Points
- School Tribunal must frame and decide three preliminary issues: recognition of school
- validity of appointment under Section 5 MEPS Act
- and approval by Education Officer
- failure to do so vitiates the order.
