Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by a school management and its headmaster challenging the School Tribunal's order that reinstated a terminated teacher. The dispute centered on the termination of respondent Sheela Meshram, who had been appointed on probation as an Assistant Teacher in a private school. She was initially appointed temporarily for the academic session 1998-99, and her service was approved by the Education Officer. She was then terminated and reappointed on probation for two years from 1 July 1999. The Education Officer approved this appointment only for one academic session, subject to fulfillment of backlog of reserved category teachers. The management terminated her on 31 March 2000, citing backlog, effective 30 April 2000; the respondent claimed actual termination on 1 July 2000. She appealed to the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal, but on remand from the High Court, it allowed the appeal, holding the management failed to prove the post was reserved for ST category. The management then filed the present writ petition. The core legal issue was whether the termination was illegal for non-compliance with the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules, and whether the respondent was entitled to deemed confirmation under Section 5(2). The management argued that the appointment was not in accordance with law and the Education Officer's approval was conditional, so termination was justified. The Education Officer contended that the post should have been filled by an ST candidate as per roster and the management did not prepare the roster. The respondent asserted she was not informed of any reservation and her termination was improper. The High Court, per Justice R.K. Deshpande, analyzed the facts: out of eight posts, four were filled from SC, and the next roster point was ST; the management did not prepare a roster. The court emphasized that an employee on probation does not automatically gain deemed confirmation; she must show appointment in conformity with Section 5(1) and, for reserved vacancies, with Rules 9(8) and 9(9)(a). If the post was reserved, compliance with reservation rules was lacking; if open, the management failed to check the surplus list. Thus, the appointment was illegal. The Court held the Tribunal's finding that the post was not reserved was erroneous. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the School Tribunal's order was quashed, and the employee's appeal was dismissed. No costs were ordered.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationary Teacher - Deemed Confirmation - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Sections 5(2), 5(1) - Merely because an appointment order states probation for two years, the employee does not automatically acquire deemed confirmation; the employee must establish that the appointment was in accordance with Section 5(1) and, for reserved vacancies, with Rules 9(8) and 9(9)(a) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. Held, the school management failed to comply with mandatory legal requirements, so the termination did not violate the Act. (Paras 8-9) B) Service Law - Backlog and Roster Compliance - Reservation - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981, Rules 9(7), 9(8), 9(9)(a) - The management failed to prepare a roster before appointing the respondent; the Education Officer's stand was that the post was required to be filled by a Scheduled Tribe candidate as per roster, and the management did not fulfill backlog. Thus, the appointment was not in accordance with law. Held, the School Tribunal's finding that the post was not reserved was erroneous. (Paras 5, 9-10) C) Administrative Law - Surplus Teacher Absorption - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5(1) proviso - If the post is treated as open category, the management was required to ascertain from the Education Officer whether any suitable surplus candidate was available for absorption, which was not done. Additionally, the management was directed to absorb a surplus teacher, but she was later repatriated. Held, non-compliance with the proviso rendered the appointment irregular. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the respondent employee was in accordance with the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules, entitling her to protection from termination and deemed confirmation under Section 5(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The School Tribunal's order dated 30.06.2012 in Appeal STN No. 73/2000 is quashed and set aside. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- proviso to Section 5(1) M.E.P.S. Act requires ascertaining availability of surplus candidates
- compliance with Rule 9(8) and (9)(a) M.E.P.S. Rules mandatory for reserved category appointments
- appointment not in accordance with law does not confer right to deemed confirmation under Section 5(2)
- management must prepare roster before making appointments
- backlog must be fulfilled for approval
