Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sangita Vidyadhar Malte, was appointed as a full-time instructor in MLT (MCVC) at a junior college run by respondent no.2 society on 1st October 1995, subject to approval by the Deputy Director of Vocational Training (respondent no.4). Her services were terminated on 20th April 1999 on the erroneous ground that she had attained superannuation, though she was only 34 years old. The management then appointed respondent no.1, Nitin Ananda Bansode, on 7th July 1999, but respondent no.4 did not grant approval to this appointment. Respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, which by order dated 19th September 2002 quashed his appointment with retrospective effect, directed the management to reinstate him with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, and directed recovery of salary paid to the petitioner from her. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the appointment of respondent no.1 was without approval from the competent authority and thus invalid. The School Tribunal's direction to recover salary from the petitioner was without jurisdiction as she was not a party to the appeal and had rendered services. The court quashed the tribunal's order and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Approval - Appointment of a teacher without approval from the Deputy Director of Vocational Training is invalid - The School Tribunal erred in directing the management to reinstate respondent no.1 and recover salary from the petitioner, as the appointment was not approved by the competent authority (Paras 2-10)
B) Service Law - Termination - Misconception - Termination of petitioner on ground of superannuation was based on misconception as petitioner was only 34 years old - However, the petitioner did not challenge the termination and the tribunal's order was set aside (Paras 2-5)
C) Service Law - Recovery - Salary - The School Tribunal cannot direct recovery of salary paid to the petitioner from her, as she was not a party to the appeal and had rendered services - Such direction is without jurisdiction (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal's order quashing the appointment of respondent no.1 and directing recovery of salary from the petitioner was legally sustainable
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the School Tribunal dated 19th September 2002, and set aside the direction to recover salary from the petitioner.
Law Points
- Appointment without approval from competent authority is invalid
- School Tribunal cannot direct recovery of salary from petitioner
- Writ Court can interfere if tribunal order is perverse or without jurisdiction
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 154
Writ Petition No. 5900 of 2002
Mr. Uday Malte i/b Mr. S.R. Waghmare for Petitioner, Mr. Dilip Bodake for Respondent No.1, Mr. Milind Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Smt. M.S. Bane, A.G.P. for the State
Bansode Nitin Ananda, The Secretary, Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Satara, Principal, Modern College, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Dy. Director of Vocational Training, Bandra (East), Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order of School Tribunal
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash and set aside the order dated 19th September 2002 passed by the Additional School Tribunal, New Mumbai in Appeal No. 68 of 2000
Filing Reason
The School Tribunal's order quashed the appointment of respondent no.1 with retrospective effect and directed recovery of salary paid to the petitioner from her
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal had allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits
Issues
Whether the appointment of respondent no.1 was valid without approval from the Deputy Director of Vocational Training
Whether the School Tribunal could direct recovery of salary from the petitioner who was not a party to the appeal
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that her termination was based on a misconception and that respondent no.1's appointment was without approval
Respondent no.1 argued that his appointment was valid and the tribunal's order was correct
Ratio Decidendi
An appointment made without approval from the competent authority is invalid. The School Tribunal cannot direct recovery of salary from a person who was not a party to the appeal and who had rendered services.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 19th September, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, New Mumbai in Appeal No. 68 of 2000 thereby quashing and setting aside the appointment of the respondent no.1 with retrospective effect...
The school tribunal also declared that the respondent no.1 shall be entitled for continuity of his services w.e.f. 7th July, 1999 with all consequential benefits, including the salary of his work done from 7th July, 1999 to 24th April, 2000, by recovering the same from the petitioner if paid to her within three months from the date of the said order.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed on 1st October 1995, terminated on 20th April 1999. Respondent no.1 was appointed on 7th July 1999 but approval was not granted. Respondent no.1 filed Appeal No. 68 of 2000 before the School Tribunal which passed the impugned order on 19th September 2002. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 2002.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
