Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, an educational society and its junior college, challenged the judgment of the School Tribunal, Amravati, which had allowed the appeal of respondent no.3, a vocational instructor, against his termination from service. Respondent no.3 was appointed as an Instructor in the Electrical Maintenance trade on 31 July 1995 on a purely temporary basis for the academic session 1995-96. The Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training granted approval to the appointment for the period from 3 August 1995 to 30 April 1996. Respondent no.3's services were terminated with effect from 30 June 1996. He filed Appeal No. 74/2000 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, before the School Tribunal, Amravati. The Tribunal found that respondent no.3 possessed the required qualifications and experience, that the vacancy was clear and permanent, and that the appointment should have been made on probation for two years under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act. The Tribunal held that the termination was without reasons and in contravention of the Act and Rules, so it set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with continuity in service, but denied backwages. The employer filed the present writ petition. The principal legal issue was whether respondent no.3 possessed the essential qualification of a certificate in Instructor's Training from the Central Training Institute for Instructors as mandated by Item 8(ii) of Part III of Schedule B to the MEPS Rules. The petitioners contended that respondent no.3 lacked this certificate and thus was not qualified, so the appointment was rightly made on a temporary basis and termination was valid. Respondent no.3 argued that he was qualified and the Tribunal's order was correct, and also claimed that since the reinstatement order had not been implemented despite the High Court refusing interim relief and the Supreme Court dismissing an SLP, he should be granted salary for that period. The High Court analyzed the qualification requirements and found that Item 8(ii) prescribes three separate certificates: a Secondary School Certificate, a certificate from NCTVT in the trade of electrician or designated trade, and a certificate in Instructor's Training from the Central Training Institute for Instructors. Respondent no.3 admittedly did not possess the Instructor's Training certificate. The Court held that this certificate is an essential and distinct requirement, and without it, the employee cannot be considered qualified to teach as a full-time Instructor. Additionally, the three years' experience required under clause (b) must be acquired after obtaining the Instructor's Training certificate. Consequently, the Tribunal erred in treating the appointment as on probation. The appointment was temporary for one session, approval was for the same period, and termination at the end of the session was legal. Regarding the claim for salary during the pendency, the Court declined to grant any direction in this petition, leaving respondent no.3 at liberty to file appropriate proceedings. The writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal's order dated 17 August 2006 was quashed and set aside, and Appeal No. 74/2000 was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law – Qualification for Vocational Instructors – Essential qualification under MEPS Rules – Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5(2) and Item 8(ii) of Part III of Schedule B to the Rules – The employee was appointed as full-time Instructor (Electrical Maintenance) on a temporary basis for one session. He possessed SSC and HSSC certificates and a certificate from NCTVT in the trade of electrician, but did not have the certificate in Instructor's Training from Central Training Institute for Instructors. The Court held that the Instructor's Training certificate is an essential qualification distinct from the trade certificates, and without it, the employee could not be considered qualified for the post. Consequently, the appointment could not be treated as on probation under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, and the termination at the end of the session was valid. Held that the School Tribunal erred in finding the employee qualified and in ordering reinstatement (Paras 5-9). B) Service Law – Reinstatement and Backwages – Effect of non-implementation of reinstatement order – The employee sought salary for the period from the date of the Tribunal's reinstatement order till the dismissal of the writ petition, as the order was not implemented despite refusal of interim relief by the High Court and dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court. The Court declined to grant any direction in the writ petition, leaving the employee at liberty to file appropriate proceedings to recover such salary, if permissible in law (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent employee possessed the essential qualification and experience for appointment as a full-time Instructor (Electrical Maintenance) under Item 8(ii) of Part III of Schedule B of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, and consequently whether his termination at the end of the temporary appointment was valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 17 August 2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, in Appeal No. 74/2000 is quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by respondent no.3 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Qualification for teachers of vocational subjects must be strictly construed
- Instructor's Training certificate from Central Training Institute for Instructors is an essential requirement separate from trade certificates
- teaching experience must be obtained after acquiring the Instructor's Training certificate
- temporary appointment at the end of the session is valid when the employee lacks essential qualification
- reinstatement cannot be ordered if appointment was not in compliance with statutory qualifications.
