Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Geeta Khandwekar, was appointed as a teacher in a private school managed by the Bharat Education Society. She was appointed initially for the session 1989-90 and her services were continued on a year-to-year basis with approval from the Deputy Director of Education. On 15.03.1995, the Deputy Director communicated that approval was extended only till 30.04.1995 as a special case. Consequently, the management terminated her services with effect from 30.04.1995. The petitioner challenged the termination before the School Tribunal, Nagpur, which dismissed her appeal on 28.10.1998. During the pendency of the appeal, she continued to serve due to an interim stay. The High Court also granted interim protection on 16.11.1998, and she remained in service. The petitioner argued that she was appointed on probation and had put in more than 20 years of service. However, the court noted that her appointment was on a year-to-year basis and the approval was limited. The court held that as a probationer, she had no right to continue beyond the approved period. The petition was dismissed, and the termination was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probationary Appointment - Termination - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Schedule B - The petitioner was appointed as a teacher on probation and her services were continued on year-to-year basis with approval from the Deputy Director of Education. The management terminated her services after the approval was extended only till 30.04.1995. The School Tribunal upheld the termination. The High Court held that the petitioner was a probationer and had no right to continue beyond the period of approval. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a probationary teacher appointed on year-to-year basis is valid when the approval was extended only till a specific date.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the termination of the petitioner's services.
Law Points
- Probationary appointment
- Year-to-year approval
- Termination during probation
- MEPS Rules 1981 Schedule B
- No right to continue after probation period
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 147
Writ Petition No. 3563 of 1998
Shri Anand Parchure with Shri Sharma for petitioner; Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for respondent No.4
Smt. Geeta w/o Mohan Khandwekar
The Principal, Ramnagar Bharat Vidyalaya, Nagpur and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging the judgment of School Tribunal upholding termination of service.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of termination order dated 29.03.1995 and reinstatement with continuity of service.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's services were terminated by the management after the Deputy Director of Education extended approval only till 30.04.1995.
Previous Decisions
School Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissed Appeal No. STN/66 of 1995 on 28.10.1998 upholding the termination.
Issues
Whether the termination of a probationary teacher appointed on year-to-year basis is valid when the approval was extended only till a specific date.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she was appointed on probation and had put in more than 20 years of service, and that the termination was illegal. Respondent No.4 (Deputy Director) argued that approval was given only till 30.04.1995 as a special case.
Ratio Decidendi
A probationary teacher appointed on year-to-year basis has no right to continue beyond the period of approval granted by the educational authorities. The termination upon expiry of such approval is valid.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel does not dispute that Schedule B of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Rules) applies to the petitioner.
The learned counsel states that in service book, the appointment has been shown as appointment on probation.
Procedural History
Petitioner was appointed in 1989-90 on probation. Services continued year-to-year. On 15.03.1995, Deputy Director extended approval till 30.04.1995. Management terminated services on 29.03.1995 w.e.f. 30.04.1995. Petitioner appealed to School Tribunal which dismissed appeal on 28.10.1998. Petitioner filed writ petition in High Court on 16.11.1998 and obtained interim stay. High Court heard and dismissed petition on 07.10.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Schedule B
