Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pen Shikshan Mahila Samiti, a school management, challenged the judgment and order dated 9.7.1990 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune, which set aside the termination of respondent No.1, a teacher, and directed her reinstatement with backwages. The respondent No.1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher for the academic year 1987-88 by order dated 4.6.1987, with a condition that her services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. She executed an undertaking agreeing to such termination. During her employment, she was served with two memos: one dated 18.1.1988 explaining how to teach, and another dated 3.5.1988 bringing to her notice lapses committed by her. Her services were terminated by order dated 6.5.1988. The School Tribunal held that the termination was illegal as it was without prior approval under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and without holding an inquiry. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, holding that the termination was punitive in nature as it was based on allegations of misconduct, and that the undertaking could not override the statutory provisions. The court dismissed the petition with costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationer - Section 5 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Termination of a teacher during probation without prior approval of the competent authority and without holding an inquiry is illegal and void - The court held that the undertaking given by the teacher cannot override the statutory provisions of the Act and that the termination was punitive in nature as it was based on allegations of misconduct (Paras 2-6).
B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Probationer - Even a probationer is entitled to protection of principles of natural justice if the termination is based on allegations of misconduct - The court held that the memos issued to the teacher indicated that the termination was not simpliciter but was based on lapses, thus requiring an inquiry (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a teacher during the academic year without following the procedure under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and without holding an inquiry is legal and valid.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with costs, upholding the School Tribunal's order of reinstatement with backwages.
Law Points
- Termination without inquiry is illegal
- Probationer entitled to protection under M.E.P.S. Act
- Section 5 of M.E.P.S. Act requires prior approval
- Undertaking cannot override statutory rights
- Natural justice principles apply to probationers
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (11) 9
Writ Petition No. 3995 of 1990
Shri Neel Helekar with Mrs. Anjali Helekar for the petitioner; Shri Anita Agarwal with Ms. Priyana C. Mehta for respondent No.1
Pen Shikshan Mahila Samiti
Mrs. Shradha Shriram Thakue, Shri D.S. Jagtap (Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal setting aside termination and directing reinstatement with backwages.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (school management) sought to quash the School Tribunal's order and uphold the termination of the teacher.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the School Tribunal's order dated 9.7.1990 which set aside the termination of respondent No.1 and directed her reinstatement with backwages.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal, Pune, by order dated 9.7.1990, set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement with backwages.
Issues
Whether the termination of a teacher during the academic year without prior approval under Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act is legal?
Whether the termination was punitive in nature requiring an inquiry?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the respondent No.1 was a probationer and her services were terminated in accordance with the terms of appointment and undertaking.
The respondent No.1 argued that the termination was illegal as it was without prior approval and without holding an inquiry, and that the memos indicated misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of a teacher during probation without prior approval of the competent authority under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and without holding an inquiry is illegal and void. An undertaking given by the teacher cannot override the statutory provisions of the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are that respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 4.6.1987 for the Academic Year 1987-88 with a specific condition that without assigning any reason her services can be terminated at any time during the academic year; if her services were found not necessary.
The respondent No.1 during the period of her employment was served with two memos; one dated 18.1.1988, explaining her, how to teach the students; and another letter dated 3.5.1988 bringing to her notice the lapses committed by her as a teacher.
Procedural History
The respondent No.1 was appointed on 4.6.1987, served with memos on 18.1.1988 and 3.5.1988, and terminated on 6.5.1988. She approached the School Tribunal, which set aside the termination on 9.7.1990. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 19.11.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 5
