Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Anupama Kishor Khanolkar, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in respondent no.2 school on 12th June 1989. In July 1994, a vacancy arose for the post of Headmistress. The petitioner claimed she was the senior most and ought to have been promoted, but the management appointed Smt. Anuya Mahesh Gaitonde instead. The petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, Mumbai (Appeal No.141 of 1995), which was allowed on 13th May 1997. The Tribunal set aside the appointment of Smt. Gaitonde as illegal and directed the management to hand over charge to the petitioner, deeming her as Headmistress from 7th July 1994 with salary and allowances. However, the management did not comply and instead terminated the petitioner's services on 30th June 1999. The petitioner filed another appeal (Appeal No.110 of 1999) challenging the termination. The School Tribunal dismissed this appeal on 30th March 2002, holding that the petitioner's appointment as Headmistress was made without prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education as required under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, and therefore void ab initio. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Tribunal's order and reinstatement with back wages. The High Court examined the provisions of the Act and Rules, particularly Section 5 which requires prior approval for appointment of Headmistress. The court noted that the petitioner's appointment was made by the management without obtaining such approval, and the earlier Tribunal order directing reinstatement was itself without jurisdiction as it could not have directed reinstatement without approval. The court held that the subsequent Tribunal's decision dismissing the appeal was correct and not perverse. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Prior Approval - Section 5 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The appointment of a Headmistress without prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education is void ab initio. The School Tribunal cannot direct reinstatement without such approval. (Paras 1-28)
B) Service Law - Promotion - Seniority - Rule 12 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The petitioner, though senior, was not entitled to automatic promotion as Headmistress without following the procedure of obtaining prior approval from the education authorities. (Paras 2-10)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 will not interfere with the decision of the School Tribunal unless it is perverse or without jurisdiction. The Tribunal's finding that the petitioner's appointment was without approval was a finding of fact not liable to be interfered with. (Paras 1, 28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's appeal for reinstatement as Headmistress was valid given that the petitioner's appointment as Headmistress was made without prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education as required under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the School Tribunal's order dated 30th March 2002. The court held that the petitioner's appointment as Headmistress without prior approval was void ab initio and the Tribunal's decision was not perverse. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment without prior approval of education authorities is void ab initio
- School Tribunal cannot direct reinstatement without approval
- Section 5 of MEPS Act requires prior approval for appointment as Headmistress
- Rule 12 of MEPS Rules requires approval for promotion
- Writ of certiorari not available if Tribunal's decision is not perverse
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 99
WRIT PETITION NO.7169 OF 2002
Ms. Anupama B. Shah for the Petitioner, Mr. S.J. Panicker with Ms. Poonam Panicker for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Smt. Anupama Kishor Khanolkar
Abhinav Education Society, Abhinav Vidya Mandir (English Medium) Nos.1 and 2, Deputy Director of Education
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order of School Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal for reinstatement as Headmistress.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the School Tribunal's order dated 30th March 2002 and to direct respondent nos.1 and 2 to reinstate her as Headmistress with seniority, full back wages and all other benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's appeal against termination of her services was dismissed by the School Tribunal on the ground that her appointment as Headmistress was made without prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education and was void ab initio.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal in Appeal No.141 of 1995 had earlier set aside the appointment of Smt. Anuya Mahesh Gaitonde as Headmistress and directed the management to hand over charge to the petitioner, deeming her as Headmistress from 7th July 1994. However, the management did not comply and terminated the petitioner's services on 30th June 1999.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's appeal for reinstatement was valid given that the petitioner's appointment as Headmistress was made without prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education?
Whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the appointment was void ab initio?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she was senior most and entitled to promotion as Headmistress, and the earlier Tribunal order had already directed her reinstatement.
Respondent argued that the petitioner's appointment as Headmistress was made without prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education as required under Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rule 12 of the MEPS Rules, and therefore void ab initio.
Ratio Decidendi
An appointment to the post of Headmistress without prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education as required under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 is void ab initio. The School Tribunal cannot direct reinstatement without such approval. The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere with a finding of fact unless it is perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari and writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2002, passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner (110 of 1999) and seeks an order and direction against the respondent nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner as Headmistress of the respondent no.2 school with benefit of seniority, full back wages and all other benefits.
The School Tribunal directed that the petitioner would be entitled to get the salary and allowances of the post of Headmistress.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 12th June 1989. In July 1994, a vacancy for Headmistress arose; the management appointed Smt. Anuya Mahesh Gaitonde instead of the petitioner. The petitioner filed Appeal No.141 of 1995 before the School Tribunal, which was allowed on 13th May 1997, setting aside the appointment of Smt. Gaitonde and directing the management to hand over charge to the petitioner. The management did not comply and terminated the petitioner's services on 30th June 1999. The petitioner filed Appeal No.110 of 1999 challenging the termination, which was dismissed by the School Tribunal on 30th March 2002. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed on 20th August 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 5
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 12
- Constitution of India: Article 227
