Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manohar Mahadeo Bhajikhaye, was employed as a peon with the respondent no.2 society since 1989, though he claimed appointment in 1981. On 27.11.1991, the Education Officer approved his appointment as peon with effect from 11.05.1991 until further orders. In 2001, a chargesheet was issued against him for misconduct, and after an enquiry under Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, his services were terminated on 21.02.2002. The petitioner appealed to the School Tribunal, which framed three preliminary issues as per the directions in Anna Pethe's case: (1) whether the school was recognized under the Act, (2) whether the petitioner's appointment was in accordance with Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and (3) whether the Education Officer had granted approval to the appointment. The Tribunal answered issue (1) in favor of the petitioner, but held that the appointment was not made as per Section 5 and the Rules, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court observed that the Education Officer had approved the appointment on 27.11.1991 with effect from 11.05.1991, and once such approval was granted, the Tribunal could not go behind it and hold the appointment illegal. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for decision on merits, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh without being influenced by its earlier findings on the preliminary issues.
Headnote
A) Service Law - School Tribunal - Jurisdiction - Section 5 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The School Tribunal framed preliminary issues regarding recognition of school, legality of appointment under Section 5, and grant of approval by Education Officer. The Tribunal held that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with Section 5 and dismissed the appeal. The High Court held that once the Education Officer had approved the appointment with effect from 11.05.1991, the Tribunal could not go behind the approval and hold the appointment illegal. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on merits. (Paras 2-6) B) Service Law - Termination - Enquiry - Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The petitioner was terminated after an enquiry under Rules 36 and 37. The High Court did not examine the merits of the termination but only the preliminary issue of appointment validity. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was not in accordance with Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, despite the fact that the appointment was approved by the Education Officer.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the School Tribunal dated 30.09.2010, and remitted the matter to the School Tribunal for decision on merits. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal afresh without being influenced by its earlier findings on the preliminary issues.
Law Points
- Appointment approval by Education Officer validates service under MEPS Act
- School Tribunal cannot reopen legality of appointment after approval
- Section 5 MEPS Act
- Rules 36 and 37 MEPS Rules 1981
