Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Asha Ajay Shekokar, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at New Lourds High School, Kalyan, managed by the Kalyan Education Society (respondent no.1). She applied on 28th November 1997 and received an appointment order on 29th November 1997. Her services were terminated on 21st November 1998 without any prior notice or approval from the Education Officer (respondent no.3). She appealed to the School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai, which dismissed her appeal on 3rd July 2000. Aggrieved, she filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Tribunal's order and seeking reinstatement with back wages. The High Court noted that the termination was effected without obtaining prior approval of the Education Officer as required under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The School Tribunal had not considered this mandatory requirement. The court held that the termination was void ab initio and set aside both the termination order and the Tribunal's order. It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination until reinstatement, to be paid within eight weeks. The petition was allowed with costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Services - Prior Approval - Section 5 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Termination of a teacher without prior approval of the Education Officer is void ab initio - The School Tribunal failed to consider this mandatory requirement - Held that the termination order dated 21st November 1998 is quashed and set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services as an Assistant Teacher without obtaining prior approval of the Education Officer under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 is valid and whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the termination order dated 21st November 1998 and the School Tribunal's order dated 3rd July 2000. It directed respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination until reinstatement, to be paid within eight weeks. The petition was allowed with costs.
Law Points
- Termination of services without prior approval under Section 5 of MEPS Act is void
- School Tribunal's order set aside for non-consideration of mandatory requirement
- Reinstatement with back wages granted
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 5
Writ Petition No.6157 of 2002
Mr. S.R. Borulkar for petitioner, Mr. R.S. Apte for respondents 1 and 2
The Secretary, Kalyan Education Society & others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the School Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against termination of her services as an Assistant Teacher.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the School Tribunal's order dated 3rd July 2000 and a direction to respondents to reinstate her as Assistant Teacher with back wages and other benefits from 21st November 1998.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's services were terminated on 21st November 1998 without prior approval of the Education Officer, and the School Tribunal dismissed her appeal without considering the mandatory requirement under Section 5 of the MEPS Act.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai, dismissed Appeal No.71 of 2000 on 3rd July 2000.
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services without prior approval of the Education Officer under Section 5 of the MEPS Act is valid.
Whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the mandatory requirement of prior approval.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that her termination was illegal as no prior approval was obtained from the Education Officer as required under Section 5 of the MEPS Act.
Respondents 1 and 2 contended that the termination was justified and the Tribunal's order was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of services of an employee of a private school without prior approval of the Education Officer under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 is void ab initio. The School Tribunal must consider this mandatory requirement; failure to do so renders its order unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The termination of the petitioner's services without prior approval of the Education Officer is void ab initio.
The School Tribunal has not considered this aspect at all.
The order of termination dated 21st November 1998 is quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
Petitioner applied for Assistant Teacher post on 28th November 1997, appointed on 29th November 1997, terminated on 21st November 1998. She appealed to School Tribunal, which dismissed appeal on 3rd July 2000. She then filed Writ Petition No.6157 of 2002 in Bombay High Court on 28th October 2002, notice issued, and after service on respondents, the petition was heard and disposed on 19th January 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 5
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
