Bombay High Court Allows Teacher's Petition in Age Relaxation Case - School Tribunal's Dismissal Set Aside Due to Non-Consideration of Relevant Material. The court held that the Tribunal must consider subsequent relaxation granted to similarly situated employees and permit the petitioner to apply for age relaxation under the M.E.P.S. Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 100
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sou. Rekha Damodar Joshi, was employed as an assistant teacher in a primary school from 1983 and joined respondent No.6 school on 11.6.1990. As she was overage, the school management submitted a proposal to respondent No.4 (Administrative Officer of the Municipal Primary Education Board) for relaxation of her age under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S. Act). The proposal was rejected, and her services were terminated on 28.5.1994 solely on that ground. She appealed under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act before the School Tribunal, Kolhapur (Appeal No.102 of 1994). During the pendency of the appeal, the school management sent proposals for relaxation for two other teachers and the Head Mistress who were also overage. The Deputy Director relaxed the age limit for the Head Mistress and one teacher, but rejected the proposal for the other teacher. The petitioner requested the Tribunal to permit her to apply to the Deputy Director for relaxation, but the Tribunal dismissed her appeal on 15.6.1998 without considering this subsequent development. The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant material and that the petitioner should have been allowed to apply for relaxation. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the School Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Termination of Teacher - Age Relaxation - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulations Act, 1977, Section 9 - The petitioner teacher was terminated due to overage, but the School Tribunal dismissed her appeal without considering that the Deputy Director had subsequently relaxed the age limit for other employees of the same school, and without allowing the petitioner to apply for relaxation. Held that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant material and the order was set aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the subsequent relaxation of age granted to similarly situated employees and without permitting the petitioner to apply for relaxation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The impugned order of the School Tribunal dated 15.6.1998 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the School Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petition is allowed.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • Consideration of relevant material
  • M.E.P.S. Act Section 9
  • Age relaxation for teachers
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (01) 37

Writ Petition No. 4784 of 1998

2011-01-21

Smt. Nishita Mhatre

Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Bhosale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for respondent Nos.5 and 6

Sou. Rekha Damodar Joshi

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal dismissing the appeal of a teacher whose services were terminated due to overage.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to set aside the School Tribunal's order and to be permitted to apply for age relaxation.

Filing Reason

The petitioner's services were terminated because she was overage, and the School Tribunal dismissed her appeal without considering subsequent relaxation granted to other employees.

Previous Decisions

The School Tribunal dismissed Appeal No.102 of 1994 on 15.6.1998.

Issues

Whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the subsequent relaxation of age granted to similarly situated employees. Whether the petitioner should have been permitted to apply for age relaxation before the Deputy Director.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that the Deputy Director had relaxed the age limit for other employees of the same school, and that she should have been allowed to apply for relaxation. The respondents contested the appeal, but the school management supported the petitioner's contention.

Ratio Decidendi

The School Tribunal must consider all relevant material, including subsequent relaxation granted to similarly situated employees, and must permit the petitioner to apply for age relaxation before the appropriate authority.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has challenged the order of the School Tribunal dated 15.6.1998 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, there was no other reason for terminating the services of the petitioner. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter at all.

Procedural History

The petitioner was employed as a teacher in 1983, joined respondent school on 11.6.1990, terminated on 28.5.1994 due to overage. She appealed to the School Tribunal (Appeal No.102/1994) which was dismissed on 15.6.1998. She then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulations Act, 1977: Section 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Tax Department in Excess Profits Tax Reopening and Apportionment of Managing Agency Commission. Apportionment of Commission Earned Under Managing Agency Agreement Was Proper Under Rule 9, Schedule I, Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Cooperative Society Inquiry Under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — Inquiry Under Section 83 Not Barred by Prior Audit Under Section 81. The Court Held That an Inquiry Under Section 83 Is...