Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shri Shivaji Education Society and the Headmaster of Shahajirao Patil Secondary School, challenged the order dated 11/12/2014 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.6 of 2013, which allowed the appeal of Respondent No.3, Devidas Madhukar Mane, and directed his reinstatement. The petitioners are a public trust and society running educational institutions, and the school is permanently recognized on a non-grant-in-aid basis but later received partial grant-in-aid. Respondent No.3 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2004 with qualifications B.Sc., B.P.Ed. The petitioners claimed that at the time of appointment, there were two other teachers with similar qualifications, so Respondent No.3 could not be regularized. They sent a proposal for approval to the Education Officer, who granted approval when the school received grant-in-aid, approving six teachers. Respondent No.3 became the seventh teacher, rendering him surplus. The petitioners sought to transfer him to another school, but the Education Officer refused because the post required a different qualification. Consequently, the petitioners terminated Respondent No.3's services on grounds of surplusage and lack of requisite qualification. Respondent No.3 challenged the termination before the School Tribunal, which allowed his appeal and directed reinstatement, noting that backwages were not considered due to a pending writ petition. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition. The court considered whether the appointment was on a clear vacant and permanent post and whether Respondent No.3 had become surplus. The court noted that Respondent No.3 was appointed on a vacant post and his appointment was approved by the Education Officer, establishing him as a regular employee. Regarding surplusage, the court held that Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 applies, which requires prior approval of the Education Officer and absorption efforts before retrenchment. Since the petitioners did not obtain such approval, the termination was invalid. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order of reinstatement.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Surplus Teacher - Rule 26 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 - Retrenchment on account of abolition of posts - The court held that when a permanent employee becomes surplus, the management must follow Rule 26 which requires prior approval of the Education Officer and absorption efforts before retrenchment. Since the petitioners did not obtain such approval, the termination was invalid. (Paras 8-9) B) Service Law - Regular Appointment - Approval by Education Officer - The court noted that Respondent No.3 was appointed on a vacant post and his appointment was approved by the Education Officer, establishing him as a regular employee. The contention of lack of qualification was not sustainable as the appointment had been approved. (Paras 7-8) C) Service Law - Surplus Teacher - Absorption - The court observed that the petitioners attempted to transfer Respondent No.3 to another school but failed. However, without following Rule 26, termination was not permissible. The Tribunal's order of reinstatement was upheld. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of Respondent No.3 on grounds of being surplus and lacking requisite qualification was valid and whether the School Tribunal's order of reinstatement was correct.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the School Tribunal dated 11/12/2014 in Appeal No.6 of 2013 is upheld.
Law Points
- Termination of surplus teacher without following Rule 26 of MEPS Rules is invalid
- Teacher's appointment on vacant post and approval by Education Officer establishes regular employment
- Lack of qualification cannot be raised after years of service and approval
