Bombay High Court Full Bench Clarifies Law on Whether a Retired State/National Awardee Teacher Can Serve on Inquiry Committee Under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Reference Answered Resolving Conflicting Division Bench Precedents on Composition of Inquiry Committee Under MEPS Rules.

Writ petitions challenging School Tribunal's order holding that the inquiry committee was improperly constituted because the third member, a retired State/National awardee teacher, was not in service under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules.

The management sought to have the inquiry committee deemed valid and the School Tribunal's order quashed; the teachers sought to uphold the Tribunal's finding. The primary relief before the Full Bench was an authoritative interpretation of the relevant rules.

Conflicting Division Bench judgments of the Bombay High Court on whether a retired teacher can serve as the third member of an inquiry committee under Rule 36 of the MEPS Rules, causing uncertainty for School Tribunals and litigants.

The School Tribunal in the underlying matter declared the inquiry committee defective and directed reinstatement with back wages. Two conflicting Division Bench decisions existed: Leelatai Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) held the third member must be in service, while Sudha Saikhede vs. Yashodabai Shikshan Sanstha (2003) held there was no bar for a retired teacher.

Whether a Teacher or Headmaster on whom State/National Award has been conferred, who is to be chosen as a third member in an Inquiry Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981, can be a retired Teacher/Headmaster or has essentially to be an in service Teacher/Headmaster? Which of the judgments of the Division Benches in the case of Leelatai d/o. Annapa Patil and Sudha d/o. Bhaskarrao Saikhede lay down a binding precedent regarding the age of the Award Winning Teacher/Headmaster?

Mr. Bandivadekar for the management argued that Rule 36(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) contain no prohibition against selecting a retired awardee teacher; the panel of teachers with State/National Award does not distinguish between serving and retired individuals, and the legislative intent was to ensure a fair and independent inquiry committee, not to exclude retired teachers.

Whether a Teacher or Headmaster on whom State/ National Award has been conferred, who is to be chosen as a third member in an Inquiry Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981, can be a retired Teacher/Headmaster or has essentially to be an in service Teacher/Headmaster? On 30 March 2012, while dealing with Writ Petition No.126 of 2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court was confronted with two judgments, both rendered by Division Benches of this Court, on the point involved, namely whether a retired teacher can be a member of the Inquiry Committee to inquire into the misconduct of Respondent no.1 appointed as Assistant Teacher in Petitioner no.2 school?

Writ Petition No.126 of 2012 was filed before the Bombay High Court. The learned Single Judge noticed conflicting Division Bench judgments on the composition of the inquiry committee under MEPS Rules. By order dated 30 March 2012, he referred the matter to a Larger Bench. The Full Bench was constituted, heard arguments, and reserved judgment on 21 January 2016, pronouncing it on 10 March 2016.

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: 2(26)
• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: 2(c), 36, 36(2)(a), 36(2)(a)(ii), 36(2)(a)(iii), 36(2)(b), Annexure A