Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ku. Arti d/o Vithalrao Warkhede, was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak (teacher) in Sayja Mohan Vidyalaya, Sarul, which is run by respondent no. 3 trust. The Education Officer (respondent no. 1) rejected approval of her appointment on 11.4.2008 on the ground that the petitioner, being a reserved category candidate, could not be appointed against a post previously occupied by an open category candidate. Consequently, her services were terminated with effect from 9.4.2008. The petitioner initially challenged the termination before the Grievance Committee, and after an amendment to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act), an appeal is now pending before the School Tribunal. The main question before the High Court was whether the petitioner can challenge the rejection of approval in the appeal against termination. The court, relying on the Division Bench decision in Anna Manikrao Pethe v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati (1997(3) Mh.L.J. 697), held that in an appeal against termination, the School Tribunal must frame and decide three preliminary issues: (i) whether the school is a recognised school under the MEPS Act, (ii) whether the appointment was made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rules, and (iii) whether the appointment was approved by the Education Officer. If any of these issues is answered in the negative, the appeal must fail. The court observed that the rejection of approval is a condition precedent for a valid appointment and can be challenged in the appeal. Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the School Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law, including the validity of the rejection of approval, and to decide the preliminary issues as laid down in Anna Manikrao Pethe. The court also directed that the appeal be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Services - Approval of Appointment - The petitioner, a reserved category candidate, was appointed as Shikshan Sevak but approval was rejected on the ground that a reserved candidate cannot be appointed against an open category post. The court held that the rejection of approval is a condition precedent for valid appointment and can be challenged in the appeal against termination. The School Tribunal must frame and decide preliminary issues including whether the appointment was approved by the Education Officer. (Paras 2-4) B) Service Law - Preliminary Issues - MEPS Act - In an appeal against termination, the School Tribunal must decide three preliminary issues: (i) whether the school is recognised, (ii) whether the appointment was made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rules, and (iii) whether the appointment was approved by the Education Officer. If any issue is answered in the negative, the appeal must fail. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner can challenge the rejection of her approval in the appeal she has filed against her termination before the School Tribunal
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the School Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law, including the validity of the rejection of approval, and to decide the preliminary issues as laid down in Anna Manikrao Pethe. The appeal shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Appeal against termination includes challenge to rejection of approval
- School Tribunal must decide preliminary issues under MEPS Act
- Approval is a condition precedent for valid appointment
