Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Manisha Sambhaji Jadhav and Archana Baban Jadhav, were appointed as Assistant Teachers on 10/06/2009 by the respondent trust and school. Their appointments were approved and they continued until their first termination. They challenged the termination before the School Tribunal at Solapur in Appeal No.63/2011 and 64/2011, which set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement on 03/08/2012. They were reinstated. However, on 12/05/2014, the employer issued an order terminating them again, contending that the Education Officer (Secondary) had not approved their appointments due to a backlog and that they would be reinstated when vacant posts for the 'Open' category become available. The petitioners filed appeals before the School Tribunal (Appeal No.45/2014 and 46/2014), which were dismissed on 01/10/2014. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions. The court noted that the Education Officer was a party in the earlier appeals but did not raise the issue of backlog. The court held that the termination was illegal and set aside the impugned judgment, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Teachers - Backlog Vacancies - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Sections 5, 7 - Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers, their appointments were approved, and they were terminated. The School Tribunal set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement. Subsequently, the employer terminated them again on the ground that the Education Officer did not approve their appointments due to backlog vacancies. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Held that the termination was illegal as the Education Officer had not raised the backlog issue in the earlier proceedings and the earlier order of reinstatement was binding. The impugned judgment was set aside and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioners on the ground of backlog vacancies is sustainable when their earlier termination was set aside by the School Tribunal and they were reinstated, and whether the Education Officer can raise the issue of backlog after not raising it in earlier proceedings.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned judgment of the School Tribunal dated 01/10/2014 is set aside. The termination order dated 12/05/2014 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and back wages.
Law Points
- Termination of approved teachers on ground of backlog vacancies is illegal when earlier termination was set aside and reinstatement ordered
- Education Officer cannot raise new grounds after earlier proceedings
- School Tribunal must consider binding effect of its own earlier order
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (11) 5
Writ Petition No. 962 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 1052 of 2015
Shri Dhorde Vikram R. for Petitioners, Shri Karpe Rahul R. for Respondents 1 & 2, Shri N.T. Bhagat for Respondent 3
Manisha Sambhaji Jadhav and Archana Baban Jadhav
Sant Kavi Mahipati Maharaj Devsthan Trust, The New English School, and The Education Officer (S), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal dismissing appeals against termination of teachers.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought setting aside of the termination order and reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were terminated from service on the ground that their appointments were not approved due to backlog vacancies, despite earlier reinstatement order by the School Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal in Appeal No.63/2011 and 64/2011 set aside the first termination and ordered reinstatement on 03/08/2012. Subsequently, the employer terminated them again on 12/05/2014, and the School Tribunal dismissed their appeals on 01/10/2014.
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioners on the ground of backlog vacancies is sustainable when their earlier termination was set aside by the School Tribunal and they were reinstated.
Whether the Education Officer can raise the issue of backlog after not raising it in earlier proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that their appointments were approved and they were reinstated after the first termination was set aside, and the Education Officer did not raise the backlog issue in earlier proceedings.
Respondents contended that the Education Officer did not approve the appointments due to backlog vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi
The termination of the petitioners on the ground of backlog vacancies is illegal because the Education Officer, who was a party in the earlier proceedings, did not raise the issue of backlog, and the earlier order of reinstatement by the School Tribunal is binding. The School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals.
Judgment Excerpts
Contention of Mr.Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate is that the petitioners were initially appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' on 10/06/2009. Appointment was approved and they continued till their first termination, which was called in question before the School Tribunal at Solapur in Appeal No.63/2011 and 64/2011 respectively.
It is further submitted that the respondent / employer issued an order dated 12/05/2014 contending therein that the Education Officer (Secondary) has not approved the appointment of the petitioners on the ground that there is a backlog and that when vacant posts for 'Open' category are available, the petitioners would be reinstated.
Procedural History
Petitioners appointed on 10/06/2009. First termination challenged in Appeal No.63/2011 and 64/2011 before School Tribunal, which set aside termination on 03/08/2012 and ordered reinstatement. Employer terminated again on 12/05/2014. Petitioners filed Appeal No.45/2014 and 46/2014, dismissed on 01/10/2014. Present writ petitions filed on 09/02/2015 and decided on 22/11/2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
