Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Andheri Education Society and Seth M.A. High School, challenged the judgment and order dated 16 October 2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai, which allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.1, Smt. Sherly Paul, under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The Tribunal set aside the order of termination dated 14 July 2014 and directed the petitioners to reinstate respondent no.1 to her original post of Headmistress with continuity of service and back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement within three months. The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Desai, argued that the Tribunal erred in its decision. Respondent no.1 appeared in person, and the State respondents were represented by AGP Mr. A.R. Mektari. The High Court, presided over by Justice R.D. Dhanuka, reserved judgment on 11 August 2016 and pronounced on 23 August 2016. The court examined the facts and submissions, noting that the termination was effected without prior approval from the Education Officer as required under Section 9(2) of the MEPS Act. The court held that the Tribunal's order was based on correct appreciation of law and facts, and no interference was warranted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Employee - Prior Approval - Section 9(2) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The termination of a headmistress without obtaining prior approval from the Education Officer as required under Section 9(2) is invalid - The School Tribunal correctly set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement with back wages - The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no perversity or error of law (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal erred in setting aside the termination of respondent no.1 and ordering reinstatement with back wages, and whether the termination was valid without prior approval under Section 9(2) of the MEPS Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the judgment and order of the School Tribunal dated 16 October 2015, directing reinstatement of respondent no.1 with continuity of service and back wages.
Law Points
- Prior approval of Education Officer required before termination of employee under Section 9(2) of MEPS Act
- 1977
- School Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide validity of termination
- Writ petition against Tribunal order maintainable under Articles 226 and 227.
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 223
WRIT PETITION NO.6199 OF 2016
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Bharati Desai a/w Mr. Sariputta Sarnath i/by Mr. Swaraj S. Jadhav for the petitioners; Ms. Sherly Paul, respondent no.1 in-person; Mr. A.R. Mektari, AGP for respondent nos.2 to 4
Andheri Education Society and Seth M.A. High School
Smt. Sherly Paul, Education Officer (West Zone), Deputy Director of Education, State of Maharashtra
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 the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, Mumbai, which allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 and set aside her termination.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Tribunal's order dated 16 October 2015.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's order directing reinstatement of respondent no.1 with back wages, arguing that the termination was valid.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal, Mumbai, by judgment and order dated 16 October 2015, allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, setting aside the termination order dated 14 July 2014 and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal erred in setting aside the termination of respondent no.1 and ordering reinstatement with back wages.
Whether the termination was valid without prior approval under Section 9(2) of the MEPS Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's order was erroneous and that the termination was justified.
Respondent no.1 supported the Tribunal's order, contending that the termination was without prior approval and thus invalid.
Ratio Decidendi
The termination of an employee under the MEPS Act without prior approval from the Education Officer as required under Section 9(2) is invalid. The School Tribunal's order setting aside such termination and directing reinstatement with back wages is correct and does not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16th October 2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and setting aside the order of termination dated 14th July 2014.
Procedural History
The respondent no.1 filed an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act before the School Tribunal, Mumbai, challenging her termination dated 14 July 2014. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on 16 October 2015, setting aside the termination and ordering reinstatement with back wages. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 23 August 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 9, Section 9(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
