Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sudhakar Trimbakrao Kalmegh, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a school administered by respondent no.1 society on 15th July 1994 on probation for two years. He claimed his services were orally terminated on 8th September 1998. He filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The Tribunal framed three preliminary issues as per the case of Anna Manikrao Pethe v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal (1997(3) Mh.L.J. 697): whether the school was recognized, whether the appointment was made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rules, and whether the appointment was approved by the Education Officer. The Tribunal answered the first two issues in the affirmative but the third in the negative, holding that the appointment was not approved. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The appellant challenged this order in Writ Petition No.4020 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 25th June 2001. The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench heard arguments from both sides and examined the record. The court noted that the appellant's appointment lacked approval from the Education Officer, and therefore the termination was not covered under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the decisions of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Service - Approval of Appointment - Section 5, Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The appellant's appointment as Assistant Teacher was not approved by the Education Officer, and therefore the termination of his services was not covered under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. The School Tribunal and the learned Single Judge correctly dismissed the appeal and writ petition. Held that the appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of an employee whose appointment was not approved by the Education Officer is covered under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act).
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment without approval by Education Officer is not valid
- Termination of unapproved appointment not covered under Section 9 of MEPS Act
- School Tribunal correctly framed issues as per Anna Manikrao Pethe case
