Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pratibha Ramchandra Kawale, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the respondent management on 26 June 2000 pursuant to an advertisement. She joined on 1 July 2000 and continued till 27 June 2005. On 25 June 2005, the respondent No.4 issued a termination order terminating her services from 27 June 2005 on the ground that her appointment was made contrary to the Shikshan Sevak scheme. The petitioner challenged the termination before the School Tribunal, Chandrapur, which rejected her appeal on 23 August 2012. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that it was undisputed that the Headmaster had not forwarded the proposal seeking approval to the appointment. The court held that the appointment being contrary to the Shikshan Sevak scheme was void ab initio, and the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant any relief. The petition was dismissed, and the termination was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Services - Appointment Contrary to Shikshan Sevak Scheme - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher without following the mandatory Shikshan Sevak scheme. The School Tribunal upheld the termination. The High Court held that the appointment being contrary to the statutory scheme was void ab initio, and the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant any relief. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-6) B) Service Law - Void Appointment - No Right to Relief - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - An appointment made in violation of the statutory recruitment procedure confers no right on the appointee. The School Tribunal cannot grant any relief for a void appointment. The termination order was upheld. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the termination order on the ground that the appointment was made contrary to the Shikshan Sevak scheme, and whether the appointment being void ab initio, the petitioner is entitled to any relief.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the School Tribunal and the termination of the petitioner's services.
Law Points
- Appointment contrary to statutory scheme is void ab initio
- School Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant relief for void appointment
- Shikshan Sevak scheme mandatory for appointments after 2000
