Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Narendra Keshaorao Meshram, was employed as a teacher by the respondent school on a temporary basis from year to year. His services were terminated by an order dated 09.07.2000. He filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (MEPS Act), which was dismissed on 30.07.2003. The Tribunal held that the petitioner's appointment was temporary throughout, came to an end on 30.04.2002, and no further appointment order was issued. It also held that the petitioner could not claim deemed confirmation under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act as he was not appointed on probation, and that he was not qualified as he did not possess B.Ed. at the time of initial appointment. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court, relying on its earlier decisions in Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj Bahuuddesihya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Devendra Bhagwani Matode, Dr. S. R. Ambedkar Samiti v. Ku. M.L. Lonkar, and Pralhad Vitthalrlao Bhusari v. New Ideal Education Society, noted that the Court has set aside termination orders of untrained teachers due to Government Resolutions extending the period for obtaining training qualification. The Court also referred to Section 4(6) of the MEPS Act read with Rule 28 of the MEPS Rules, which provides that services of a temporary employee cannot be terminated except in accordance with the Act and Rules. The Court found that the School Tribunal's order was erroneous and set it aside, allowing the writ petition. The matter was remitted back to the School Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of the Government Resolutions and the legal position regarding termination of temporary employees.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Temporary Employee - Section 4(6) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 read with Rule 28 of MEPS Rules - Services of a temporary employee cannot be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules - The School Tribunal's finding that the petitioner's appointment was temporary and came to an end automatically was erroneous as termination must comply with statutory requirements (Paras 1-4). B) Service Law - Untrained Teacher - Government Resolutions Extending Training Period - The Court has set aside orders of termination of untrained teachers due to Government Resolutions extending the period for obtaining training qualification - The petitioner, though untrained at initial appointment, is entitled to protection under such resolutions (Para 3). C) Service Law - Deemed Confirmation - Section 5(2) of MEPS Act - Deemed confirmation does not apply to temporary appointments - The School Tribunal correctly held that the petitioner cannot claim deemed confirmation as his appointment was temporary on year-to-year basis (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of an untrained teacher appointed on temporary basis is valid in light of Government Resolutions extending the period to obtain training qualification, and whether the School Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to deemed confirmation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.07.2003 passed by the School Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the School Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, in light of the Government Resolutions and the legal position regarding termination of temporary employees.
Law Points
- Deemed confirmation under Section 5(2) of MEPS Act not applicable to temporary appointments
- Termination of temporary employee must comply with Section 4(6) and Rule 28 of MEPS Rules
- Government Resolutions extending training period protect untrained teachers from termination
