Case Note & Summary
The judgment disposes of a batch of writ petitions filed by teachers serving as Vice-Principals in junior colleges in Maharashtra. The petitioners had challenged a Government Resolution dated 2 January 2002 that altered the seniority criterion for the post of Vice-Principal, substituting the date of acquiring a teaching qualification for the earlier basis of initial appointment. They apprehended reversion from their Vice-Principal positions. The dispute was rooted in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules of 1981, particularly Schedule-F which governed seniority. The petitioners had been appointed as Assistant Teachers between 1976 and 1980 during the introduction of the 10+2+3 educational system. A Government Resolution of 6 May 1976 permitted appointment without a B.Ed. degree but required it to be obtained within five years. They later rose to Vice-Principals under Government Resolutions of 5 August 1997 and 10 March 1998, which determined seniority from the date of initial appointment. Subsequent litigation before the Nagpur Bench of the High Court led to an order directing implementation of a Government Resolution dated 20 February 1998 that linked seniority to the date of acquiring the teaching qualification, culminating in the impugned 2002 Resolution. The High Court did not adjudicate the validity of the 2002 Resolution or the applicability of Schedule-F to the Vice-Principal post on merits, noting that no adverse action had yet been taken against the petitioners. It directed that if the authorities consider any adverse step such as reversion, they must take into account that the petitioners were appointed under the 1976 Government Resolution when the 1981 Rules were not in existence, and they became Vice-Principals under the 1997/1998 Resolutions. Additionally, the court mandated that the petitioners must be heard before any decision is made. The writ petitions were thus disposed of with these protective directions; the rule was made absolute and parties were left to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Seniority Criteria for Vice-Principals - Applicability of Schedule-F - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Schedule-F - The petitioners were appointed Vice-Principals under Government Resolutions dated 5 August 1997 and 10 March 1998 that reckoned seniority from initial appointment; the impugned Government Resolution dated 2 January 2002 adopted the seniority principle from Schedule-F linking to date of acquiring teaching qualification - Held, the question of applicability of the 2002 GR to the petitioners was a moot point requiring consideration by the authorities before taking adverse steps (Paras 6-8).
B) Service Law - Adverse Action - Right to Hearing - Principles of natural justice - The court directed that if reversion or other adverse action is contemplated against the petitioners from the post of Vice-Principal, the authorities must provide an opportunity of hearing, taking into account that the petitioners had been continuing as Vice-Principals since 1997 and were appointed when the Government Resolution dated 6 May 1976 was in force and the Rules of 1981 were not yet enacted - Held, a precondition of hearing is necessary before any decision affecting their continuation (Paras 8, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government Resolution dated 2 January 2002 is valid and applicable to the petitioners; whether Schedule-F to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 applies to the post of Vice-Principal; whether the petitioners are entitled to a hearing before any adverse action.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are disposed of. If the authorities contemplate any adverse action against the petitioners regarding their continuation as Vice-Principals, they must consider the historical context of the petitioners' appointments (including the Government Resolution of 6 May 1976 and the absence of the 1981 Rules at that time), the fact that they were appointed Vice-Principals under the 1997/1998 Resolutions, and must hear the petitioners before passing any order. Rule made absolute. No costs.
Law Points
- seniority criterion
- Schedule-F
- Government Resolution
- Vice-Principal appointment
- teaching qualification
- right to hearing
- natural justice
- Rules of 1981
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 103
Writ Petition Nos. 2411, 2415, 1204, 1205, 1206 & 1207 of 2002
P.B. Majmudar, R.M. Savant
Vijay D. Patil, S.S. Bhende, S.R. Page
Shrikant Narayan Kulkarni, Sharatkant Amrut Kulkarni, Manohar Rangrao Kumbhar, Raghunath Damodar Joshi, Mrs. Pratibha Bajirao Patil, Laxman Shankar Killedar
State of Maharashtra, Secretary Education Department (School), Director of Education (Secondary & Higher Secondary Education), Deputy Director of Education (Secondary & Higher Secondary Education), and respective college managements
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging a Government Resolution and seeking a declaration of non-applicability of statutory rules to the posts held by the petitioners.
Remedy Sought
To quash the Government Resolution dated 2 January 2002 and declare that Schedule-F to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 is not applicable to the petitioners.
Filing Reason
Apprehension of reversion from the post of Vice-Principal due to the changed seniority criterion introduced by the impugned Government Resolution.
Previous Decisions
A Division Bench order dated 6 November 2001 in Review Petition in Writ Petition No. 916 of 1998 directed implementation of Government Resolution dated 20 February 1998, which led to the issuance of the impugned Government Resolution dated 2 January 2002.
Issues
Whether the Government Resolution dated 2 January 2002 is valid and applicable to the petitioners.
Whether Schedule-F to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 can be applied to the post of Vice-Principal.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a hearing before any adverse action such as reversion.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were appointed under Government Resolution dated 6 May 1976 when the Rules of 1981 were not in force, thus Schedule-F cannot apply to them; that the post of Vice-Principal is outside the scope of Schedule-F; and that they were appointed as Vice-Principals under Government Resolutions dated 5 August 1997 and 10 March 1998 which determined seniority from initial appointment.
Respondents contended that the impugned Government Resolution dated 2 January 2002 merely applies the seniority principle contained in Schedule-F and is justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court did not decide the substantive validity of the impugned Government Resolution or the applicability of Schedule-F, but held that if adverse action is contemplated against the petitioners, the authorities are obligated to consider the unique historical circumstances of their appointments and afford them an opportunity of hearing, given their long continuance as Vice-Principals and interim protection.
Judgment Excerpts
the petitioners have approached this Court on the apprehension that an adverse action is likely to be taken against the petitioners in view of the said impugned G.R. dated 2nd January, 2002.
as and when such action is contemplated against the petitioners, the authorities would be obligated to consider the fact that the petitioners were appointed when Government Resolution dated 6th May, 1976 was in vogue and when the Rules of 1981 were not even in the picture.
the authorities would also have to consider the fact that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 5th August, 1997 and, therefore, whether the subsequent G.R. dated 2nd January, 2002 could be made applicable to the petitioners would also be a moot question.
Since the petitioners have continued from the year 1997, till the filing of the present petitions and thereafter under the interim orders of this Court, in our view, it would be in the fitness of things that the authorities hear the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate orders in case any adverse action is contemplated against the petitioners in the matter of their continuation as Vice-Principals.
Procedural History
The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers between 1976 and 1980 and later as Vice-Principals under Government Resolutions of 1997-98. A writ petition before the Nagpur Bench (WP 916/1998) led to a Division Bench order dated 6 November 2001 directing implementation of the 20 February 1998 Government Resolution, which in turn resulted in the impugned Government Resolution of 2 January 2002. The petitioners filed these writ petitions challenging that Resolution. The High Court admitted the petitions and granted interim orders maintaining status quo. Final hearing took place on 9 July 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Schedule-F
