Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Maharashtra High School Junior College, challenged two orders of the School Tribunal: a preliminary order dated 19.11.2010 holding that the appointment of respondent no.1, Kawadu Pandurangji Ghutake, a Scheduled Caste candidate, against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe was valid, and the final order dated 06.01.2012 quashing his termination and directing reinstatement with continuity and full backwages. The respondent no.1 was initially appointed as a lecturer on 04.10.1999 for one year pursuant to an advertisement dated 30.09.1999. The Deputy Director of Education refused approval on 27.03.2000 on the ground that a candidate from the Nomadic Tribe (C) category was available at the time of interview but the respondent no.1 was appointed, leaving a backlog. The respondent no.1 continued in service beyond the initial period. The School Tribunal held that the appointment was valid under Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act read with Rule 9(9) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, as there was no restriction on appointing a candidate from another reserved category if the candidate from the reserved category was not available. The Tribunal also held that the respondent no.1 had completed two years of probation and became a permanent employee, and his termination without following Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules was invalid. The High Court upheld both orders, finding no error in the Tribunal's reasoning. The court noted that the appointment was made as per the provisions and that the termination was procedurally flawed. The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's orders were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment Against Reserved Vacancy - Validity of Appointment of SC Candidate Against ST Reserved Post - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S. Act), Section 5 and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (M.E.P.S. Rules), Rule 9(9) - The School Tribunal held that the appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe was valid as there was no restriction on appointing a candidate from another reserved category if the candidate from the reserved category was not available. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the appointment was made as per the provisions of Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act read with Rule 9(9) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. (Paras 2, 4) B) Service Law - Termination of Permanent Employee - Requirement of Compliance with Rules 36 and 37 of M.E.P.S. Rules - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (M.E.P.S. Rules), Rules 36 and 37 - The School Tribunal held that the employee had acquired the status of a permanent teacher after completion of two years of probation and continuation beyond that period. The termination of a permanent employee without following the procedure laid down in Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules was invalid. The High Court upheld this finding and directed reinstatement with continuity and full backwages. (Paras 3, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe is valid under Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act read with Rule 9(9) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, and whether the termination of the employee without following Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the School Tribunal dated 19.11.2010 and 06.01.2012. The Tribunal's direction for reinstatement with continuity and full backwages was confirmed.
Law Points
- Appointment against reserved category vacancy valid if candidate of that category unavailable
- Termination of permanent employee requires compliance with Rules 36 and 37 of M.E.P.S. Rules
- Probation period of two years under Rule 9(9) of M.E.P.S. Rules leads to permanency upon continuation beyond probation
