Case Note & Summary
This batch of six writ petitions was filed under Article 226 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the judgments of the School Tribunal at Solapur in Appeals Nos. 44/2008, 40/2008, 42/2008, 46/2008, 45/2008, and 47/2008. The petitioners were employed as Assistant Teachers, Lab Attendants, Jr. Clerk, and Naik at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vidyalaya, Kotul, run by the Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha. Their services were orally terminated on 15/07/2008, after the school received 100% grants from the government. The management started a secondary school in 1991 on a non-grant basis, later shifted without permission, leading to cancellation of recognition. After litigation and an inspection report, the government sanctioned grants to the school on 10/04/2008. Shortly thereafter, on 15/07/2008, the management orally terminated the services of all petitioners without notice or hearing. The petitioners filed appeals under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal, by interim orders, stayed the termination and directed status quo. The management challenged these interim orders in writ petitions, which were disposed of with directions to decide the appeals within three months while maintaining status quo. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, leading to the present writ petitions. The primary legal issue was whether the School Tribunal acted perversely by ignoring the management's own admissions in its written statement that the petitioners had worked for periods ranging from 12 to 18 years, and by failing to apply the statutory right to deemed permanency under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977. An ancillary issue was whether the appointments were irregular or illegal in light of the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. The petitioners contended that they had served for long durations, their appointment orders evidenced probation, and under Section 5(2), they attained deemed permanency. They argued that the Tribunal overlooked the management's pleadings admitting their continuous service and erroneously treated their appointments as backdoor entries. The management countered that the petitioners' appointment orders were invalid due to bogus signatures, lack of advertisement, and absence of a proper selection committee, and thus they were not entitled to any relief. Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge noted that the management's written statement contained clear admissions regarding the petitioners' long tenure. The court held that it was the management which allowed the petitioners to work for 12 to 18 years, and now it could not take advantage of its own wrong by raising technical objections about signatures and selection procedures. The court observed that the Tribunal failed to consider these crucial pleadings, rendering its judgment perverse and legally infirm. On the merits, the court reiterated that Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act grants deemed permanency upon completion of two years' probation, which was not disputed. The court also clarified that the ratio in Umadevi did not preclude regularization of irregular appointments; rather, it emphasized that irregular appointments (as opposed to illegal ones) should be considered sympathetically, especially when employees had worked for over ten years. Since the management did not allege that the petitioners were unqualified, the Tribunal's blanket rejection was unsustainable. The High Court quashed and set aside the judgments of the School Tribunal and remanded the matters back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law, with a direction to decide the appeals within three months. The decision implicitly favored the petitioners by finding the Tribunal's orders perverse and remanding for fresh consideration.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Consideration of Admissions - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 9 - School Tribunal dismissed appeals challenging oral termination, but failed to consider management's written statement admitting that employees had worked for 12 to 18 years - Held, non-consideration of specific pleadings/admissions amounts to serious legal infirmity and perversity, warranting quashing of impugned judgments and remand for fresh adjudication (Paras 5-6, 12-13). B) Service Law - Deemed Permanency - Section 5(2) of MEPS Act, 1977 - The Act provides that an employee appointed on probation and continued beyond two years acquires deemed permanency - Court noted that this provision is undisputed, and the management's contention that appointment orders were irregular does not defeat the statutory right when employees served for extended periods without objection (Para 4, 7-8). C) Constitutional Law - Regularisation - Irregular vs. Illegal Appointments - Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 - The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) distinguished irregular appointments (duly qualified persons in sanctioned posts continued for 10+ years) from illegal appointments and directed that those working for over 10 years without court orders should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure; the High Court held that the Tribunal misapplied Umadevi by treating these as backdoor entries despite management's own admissions (Paras 9-11). D) Administrative Law - Doctrine of Estoppel - Management Cannot Take Advantage of Its Own Wrong - General principle - Management allowed employees to work for 12-18 years, then argued that appointment orders lacked proper signatures/advertisement; Held, after such long service, management cannot turn around and claim appointments were void to defeat employees' rights, as it amounts to taking advantage of own wrong (Paras 7-8, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal erred in failing to consider the management's admissions regarding the employees' long service and the applicability of Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977, and whether the termination was illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the School Tribunal's judgments in all six appeals, holding that the Tribunal failed to consider the management's admissions and that the decisions were perverse. The matters were remanded back to the School Tribunal for fresh adjudication within three months. The court observed that the management cannot take advantage of its own wrong and that Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act provides for deemed permanency. No final relief was granted, but the order clearly favored the petitioners.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 5(2) MEPS Act provides deemed permanency after 2 years probation if continued
- Umadevi judgment clarified irregular appointments for 10+ years should be considered for regularization
- Tribunal must consider pleadings/admissions
- backdoor entry not established if management allowed work for 12-18 years
- management cannot take advantage of its own wrong
