Bombay High Court Hears Writ Petition Seeking Absorption of Shikshan Sevaks on Aided Posts in Primary School. Petitioners Claim Entitlement Under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act After Completion of Three-Year Tenure.

Case Note & Summary

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by three Shikshan Sevaks (assistant teachers) seeking absorption as Assistant Teachers in respondent No.5 school run by respondent No.4 Sanstha, and payment of regular salary with consequential benefits. They claimed completion of three years' service on sanctioned posts and entitlement to absorption upon retirement of two existing teachers and creation of additional posts. Background: Respondent No.5 is a 100% aided primary school run by respondent No.4. Petitioners were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks in 2011 after due process on sanctioned posts. Their appointments were approved by the then Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. However, the State Government initiated an inquiry against that Education Officer and stayed the approvals, stopping salary payments to the petitioners. Aggrieved, they filed an earlier writ petition (No. 10098/2014). In the present petition, they sought absorption, regular salary, and restraint on fresh recruitment. Facts: Petitioners asserted that the posts they held were created because closed divisions from other schools were transferred to respondent No.5, making them grant-in-aid admissible. They completed three years as Shikshan Sevak in 2014, attaining permanency status. Two teachers were due to retire in 2015-2016, and additional posts were likely, so they sought absorption. They made representations to respondent authorities but received no response. Respondents' position: Respondent No.3 (Education Officer) contended that the earlier staff approval granting additional 4 divisions (standards 2 to 5) by absorption was illegal, irregular, and without authority. A verification program in October 2011 found student attendance did not meet norms. Complaints led to an enquiry committee headed by Dy. Director Ghonmode; its report resulted in a government decision to make the unauthorized divisions non-aided. A government resolution dated 02.12.2014 absolved the respondent authority from paying salary to such appointees. Additionally, as of January 2015, 172 Assistant Teachers were declared surplus, and their absorption took priority over petitioners. Legal Issues: The core issues revolved around the validity of the appointments on posts created through absorption of closed divisions, the effect of the stay on approvals, the petitioners' right to absorption under MEPS Act and Rules after completing three years' service, and the priority of surplus teachers. Arguments: Petitioners argued that the approval order was valid because the posts were sanctioned after division transfers; they were not party to any irregularities by the Education Officer; they had rendered three years' continuous service on grant-worthy posts and were entitled to absorption; and the vacancies arising from retirements could accommodate them. Respondents argued that the creation of additional divisions and staff approval was illegal ab initio; the government had directed non-payment; the school's additional divisions were not permitted to receive grants; and surplus teachers had a right to absorption before new appointments. Court's Analysis: The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the court's reasoning or final decision. Proceedings indicated that on 10.11.2017, a statement was made about placing divisions on a self-finance basis, but it was later clarified as a miscommunication. The matter was reserved on 29.01.2018 and judgment was to be pronounced. Decision: The recorded text ends abruptly before the conclusion, hence the final decision and ratio decidendi are not available from the provided excerpt.

Issue of Consideration