Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Datta Shelke Education Society and its school, challenged the order of the School Tribunal dated 30 June 1999 directing reinstatement of respondent No.1, Namdeo Shankar Patil, with 20% backwages. The respondent was appointed as an assistant teacher on 10 December 1994 after an advertisement for reserved category (ST/NT) posts. The petitioners claimed the appointment was temporary until a suitable reserved category candidate was found, and that the respondent left service voluntarily to pursue a B.P.Ed. degree. The respondent contended his services were illegally terminated. The Tribunal initially allowed his appeal, and after remand, passed the impugned order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and that the petitioners failed to prove the appointment was for a fixed term or that the respondent abandoned service. The court also noted that the qualification issue was not raised before the Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Appointment - Reserved Category Post - The School Tribunal's order of reinstatement with 20% backwages was upheld by the High Court, holding that the teacher's appointment, though temporary and against a reserved post, was not shown to be for a fixed term or subject to termination upon availability of a suitable candidate; the teacher had worked continuously and his services were terminated without following due process. (Paras 1-4)
B) Service Law - Qualification - Trained Graduate Teacher - The High Court noted that the teacher was a graduate (B.Sc.) and had obtained a B.P.Ed. degree; the issue of qualification was not raised before the Tribunal and could not be raised for the first time in writ petition. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement of a teacher who was appointed temporarily against a reserved category post and who was not a trained graduate teacher.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the School Tribunal's order of reinstatement with 20% backwages.
Law Points
- Temporary appointment
- reserved category post
- termination
- reinstatement
- backwages
- qualification
- School Tribunal
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 49
Writ Petition No.5507 of 1999
Mr.C.G. Gavnekar a/w Mr.Ashutosh Gavnekar for Petitioner, Mr.Subhash Langote for Respondent No.1
Datta Shelke Education Society & anr.
Shri Namdeo Shankar Patil & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal directing reinstatement of a teacher with backwages.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 30.6.1999.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement of a teacher who was not qualified and whose appointment was temporary.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal initially allowed the teacher's appeal on 19.6.1997; that order was remanded by the High Court; after remand, the Tribunal passed the impugned order on 30.6.1999.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement of a teacher who was not a trained graduate teacher?
Whether the teacher's appointment was temporary and could be terminated upon availability of a suitable reserved category candidate?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that respondent No.1 was not qualified as a trained graduate teacher and his appointment was temporary on a year-to-year basis until a suitable reserved category candidate was found.
Respondent No.1 contended that his services were illegally terminated and he was appointed in a permanent clear vacancy.
Ratio Decidendi
A teacher appointed temporarily against a reserved category post cannot be terminated without following due process; the employer must prove that the appointment was for a fixed term or subject to a specific condition. The issue of qualification cannot be raised for the first time in a writ petition if not raised before the Tribunal.
Judgment Excerpts
Mr.Gavnekar, appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the Tribunal has erred on two counts; firstly, that respondent No.1 could not have been reinstated in service since he was not duly qualified as a trained graduate teacher to be posted in a secondary school; secondly, that the appointment of Respondent No.1 was for each year till a suitable candidate was available for being appointed to the post.
Procedural History
Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.153 of 1996 before the School Tribunal on 16.7.1996. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on 19.6.1997. The petitioners challenged that order in a writ petition, which was remanded. After remand, the Tribunal passed the impugned order on 30.6.1999. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
