Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Pratik Seva Mandal and Late Sau Jamanaben Vithalbhai Shapariya Karnabadhir Vidyalaya va Vastigruha, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 2nd April 2026 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.23/2025. The School Tribunal had allowed the appeal of Respondent No.1, Shruti Santosh Shelar, a teacher, and directed her reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The petitioners contended that the appointment of Respondent No.1 was made without prior approval of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, which is mandatory under Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as the school is an aided institution for disabled children. The court examined the provisions of the Act and found that the appointment was indeed made without the requisite approval, rendering it void ab initio. The School Tribunal had failed to consider this crucial aspect. The High Court held that the order of the School Tribunal suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record and was liable to be set aside. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal of Respondent No.1 before the School Tribunal was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Teacher - Prior Approval - Section 33 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Appointment of a teacher in an aided school for disabled children without prior approval of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is invalid and void ab initio - The School Tribunal failed to consider this mandatory requirement and allowed the appeal of the teacher - Held that the appointment being without requisite approval, the teacher cannot claim continuity of service or reinstatement (Paras 5-10).
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - High Court can interfere with orders of quasi-judicial tribunals if they suffer from error of law apparent on face of record or lack of jurisdiction - The School Tribunal's order was set aside as it ignored a statutory requirement - Held that the petition under Article 227 is maintainable and the impugned order is quashed (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal of the teacher (Respondent No.1) without considering that her appointment was made without prior approval of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as required under Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and whether the appointment was void ab initio.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd April 2026 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.23/2025, and dismissed the appeal of Respondent No.1. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
- Section 33 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- 2016
- Appointment of teachers in aided schools for disabled
- Prior approval of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 104
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition No. 7452 of 2026
Dr. Uday P Warunjikar a/w Mr. Sumit Kate, for Petitioners; Mr. Aditya Gaikwad, for the Respondent No.1
Pratik Seva Mandal, Palghar and Late Sau Jamanaben Vithalbhai Shapariya Karnabadhir Vidyalaya va Vastigruha
Shruti Santosh Shelar, The Commissioner, Person with Disabilities Welfare Department, Pune, The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare, Mumbai Division, District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad Palghar
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 allowing appeal of teacher.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the School Tribunal's order dated 2nd April 2026 in Appeal No.23/2025 which directed reinstatement of Respondent No.1 with continuity of service and back wages.
Filing Reason
The appointment of Respondent No.1 as a teacher was made without prior approval of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as required under Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, rendering the appointment void ab initio.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal, Mumbai, by judgment and order dated 2nd April 2026, allowed the appeal of Respondent No.1 and directed her reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Issues
Whether the appointment of Respondent No.1 without prior approval of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities under Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is valid.
Whether the School Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal of Respondent No.1 without considering the mandatory requirement of prior approval.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the appointment of Respondent No.1 was made without prior approval of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, which is mandatory under Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and thus the appointment is void ab initio.
Respondent No.1 contended that the School Tribunal correctly allowed her appeal and that the appointment was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The appointment of a teacher in an aided school for disabled children without prior approval of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities under Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is invalid and void ab initio. The School Tribunal's order ignoring this mandatory requirement suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2026, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.23/2025.
The appointment of Respondent No.1 was made without prior approval of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, which is mandatory under Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The School Tribunal failed to consider this crucial aspect and thus the order suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Procedural History
The Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, Mumbai under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 challenging her termination. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal on 2nd April 2026. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and finally disposed of on 30th June 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 9
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Section 33
