The main legal point established is that appointments in private schools must comply with the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, including obtaining prior permission from the education department.

Headnote:
Appointment - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act - Section 5(1), Section 5(2)
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a school management, terminated the services of the respondent, a part-time Lecturer, for not obtaining prior permission from the education department as required by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointments of the respondent did not confer any right of permanency as per the Act. The management's failure to obtain prior permission from the education department rendered the appointments inconsistent with the Act.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the respondent's termination, the bar of limitation for filing the appeal, and the requirement of prior permission for appointments under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointments did not confer permanency as they violated the provisions of the Act. The management's negligence in not obtaining prior permission led to the invalidity of the appointments.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the petitioner management to compensate the respondent with rupees thirty thousand for the management's negligence.

JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---Heard Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Haq, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petition is directed against the order dated 11-9-1998 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. SEN/138/1995 whereby appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 employee was allowed.

3. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner Sanstha runs various educational institutions, one of which is Nehru Vidyalaya and Junior College. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on 13-12-1990 as part time Lecturer in the Junior College. On 1-7-1991 two posts of Lecturer in Commerce Faculty were sanctioned in the Junior College. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part time Lecturer on clock hour basis. At the relevant time, the petitioner was holding qualification, i.e. M.Com., M.A. in Sociology and B.Ed. The said appointment was till the end of academic session, i.e. till 30-6-1992. The petitioner was again appointed in the post of Junior College Lecturer on 30-6-1992 on purely temporary basis for the academic session 1992-93. It is contended that on 9-8-1993 the respondent No. 1 was appointed for the academic session 1993-94 on temporary basis for the period from 9-8-1993 till end of the academic session. The petitioner was again appointed as a Junior College Lecturer on 3-8-1994 for one academic session subject to approval by the Deputy Director of Education. It is further contended that the Deputy Director of Education rejected the proposal for approval of the petitioner vide order dated 30-11-1994 on the ground that the petitioner did not obtain prior permission of the education department in view of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity).

4. Learned Counsel Shri Parchure submits that since the education department refused to grant approval to appointment of the respondent No. 1, petitioners gave notice of termination dated 31-3-1995 and services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 13-5-1995. It is contended that being aggrieved by the said order of termination, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal and the School Tribunal vide order dated 1-12-1995 granted interim stay to the effect and operation of the order of termination dated 31-3-1995, with the result, the respondent No. 1 was reinstated in the school on the post of Junior College Lecturer on 9-12-1995 and was permitted to join his duties. However, respondent No. 1 on his own abandoned the services as a Junior College Lecturer after the academic session 1995-96 and since then, he did not report and was gainfully employed in another establishment, i.e. Swargiya Indira Gandhi Vidyalaya and Junior College, Hinganghat. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the School Tribunal finally allowed the appeal by the impugned order and hence, presence petition is filed by the petitioners against the same.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned order on the short ground that the respondent No. 1 was appointed since 1991 on a year to year and clock hour/part time basis. It is contended that respondent No. 1 was appointed initially in the year 1991-92 on clock hour/part time basis and for the first time was appointed as a Junior College Lecturer for one year vide order dated 9-8-1993. Thereafter in the academic session 1994-95, the respondent No. 1 was re-appointed as a full time Lecturer. However, there is no question of deemed permanency as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.

6. Another limb of argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 against the order of termination dated 31-3-1995 is barred by limitation since same was filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document