The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the School Tribunal's order of reinstatement of an Assistant Teacher (Respondent No.3), terminated by the petitioners on grounds of surplus and lack of qualifications. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the termination was illegal for lack of prior approval from the Education Officer, which is a mandatory condition under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 & Rules, 1981.

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioner No.1: A Public Trust running schools in Pune District.
   • Petitioner No.2: Headmaster of Shahajirao Patil Secondary School.
   • Respondent No.3: Assistant Teacher, terminated and challenging the dismissal.

2. Employment History of Respondent No.3:

   • Appointed in 2004 as Assistant Teacher, qualified as B.Sc., B.P.Ed.
   • Worked in both aided and unaided schools under the petitioner’s management.

3. Reason for Termination:

   • Termination was due to two factors: (i) Surplus teaching staff (ii) Alleged lack of required qualification (B.P.Ed.).

4. Tribunal Proceedings:

   • Respondent No.3 appealed against his termination before the School Tribunal, which reinstated him without backwages.

5. Key Legal Issue:

   • Whether the termination of Respondent No.3 was valid in the absence of prior approval from the Education Officer under Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

6. Court’s Ruling:

   • The High Court found no perversity in the School Tribunal’s order and held that the termination was illegal due to the absence of prior approval from the Education Officer, which is mandatory for retrenching a permanent employee under Rule 26.

7. Legal References:

   • Rule 26, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Mandates prior approval for retrenchment of permanent employees.
   • Case References:
     • Charudatta Ramchandra Bagadi vs. Secretary, Shetkari Shikshan Mandal
     • Malanbai Tukaram Satpute vs. Deputy Director of Education

8. Conclusion:

   • The petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s reinstatement order, based on non-compliance with statutory procedures for termination.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 & Rules, 1981:

   • Rule 26: Pertains to the retrenchment of permanent employees, requiring prior approval from the Education Officer.

2. Article 227 of the Constitution of India:

   • Grants High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. In this case, the Court refrained from interfering due to no perversity in the Tribunal’s order.

Ratio Decidendi:

• The court emphasized that retrenchment of a permanent employee on account of surplus requires the prior approval of the Education Officer, which was absent in this case. Thus, the termination was held to be illegal.

Subject:

Employment Law, Education Law, Administrative Law, Surplus Teacher, School Tribunal, Termination, Retrenchment, Education Officer Approval, Rule 26, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, Writ Jurisdiction, Constitution of India