Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Smt. Prajwala Bhatu Khalane - Petitioner
Versus
Mahatma Phule Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Deopur, Taluka and District Dhule - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 6196 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6200 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7049 OF 2015
Decided On : 31-08-2016
For the Petitioners: Shri S.R. Barlinge and Shri S.R. Kolhare.
For the Respondents: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Shri P.G. Borade.
Headnote:Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Section 5(3)-Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Condition of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 15(6)-Termination Order.-Since termination order, terminating service of a teacher vitiated for non-compliance of Rule 15(6) hence teacher entitled to grant of 50% backwages.
Insofar as the claim for backwages is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. v. Harising, 2015 (II) CLR 468, has concluded that grant of 50% backwages would be appropriate and reasonable for reducing the hardships and rigors suffered by the employees on account of their illegal termination. Court is, therefore, granting 50% backwages to the petitioners, at the rate of last drawn wages of a regular teacher, which shall be paid by the respondent No. 1 management, since the effects of the unlawful acts of the employer shall be suffered by the employer. The State exchequer shall not be burdened for making such a payment towards backwages.
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Section 5(3)-Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Condition of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 15(6)-Termination of Probationer Teacher.- Non-compliance of requirements of Rule 15(6) of Rules, vitiates order terminating service of a probationary teacher.
The impugned judgments of the School Tribunal are rendered perverse and erroneous. The impugned judgments are, therefore, quashed and set aside. The termination orders of these teachers are quashed and the respective appeals filed by the petitioners are allowed by granting reinstatement in service with continuity from the date of their termination. Hence, these teachers shall be treated as confirmed employees from the date of their terminations.
1. Heard.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
4. In the first petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014, delivered by the School Tribunal, by which, her Appeal No.77 of 2012 has been dismissed.
5. In the second petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014, by which his Appeal No.79 of 2012 has been dismissed by the School Tribunal.
6. In the third petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014, by which her Appeal No.78 of 2012 has been dismissed by the School Tribunal.
7. In all these Appeals, the petitioners were working as 'Shikshan Sevaks' and on the stroke of the completion of their probation period, all of them have been terminated.
8. The respondent/management is the same educational institution and the same college. Hence, by the consent of the parties, all these matters have been heard together.
9. For the sake of brevity, all the petitioners in these petitions are being referred to as the 'Teachers' and the respondent / institution is being referred to as the 'employer'.
10. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides and have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance.
11. All the Teachers have applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.11.2009, by which, applications were sought for appointment of four 'Shikshan Sevaks'. By separate appointment orders, all the Teachers were appointed as 'Shikshan Sevaks' in the Secondary School, on probation. The first teacher was appointed from 3.12.2009 to 2.2.2012, second teacher was appointed from 2.12.2009 till 1.12.2012 and the third teacher was appointed from 1.12.2009 to 30.11.2012.
12. The contention of the Teachers is that at the stroke of completion of their probation period, merely because there was a change in management, they were terminated. Their services were approved by the order of approval placed on record. The only reason cited was that their appointments were illegally made and hence, their probation period has been brought to an end, when, each of them completed the said period.
13. Shri Barlinge, learned Advocate for the Teachers strenuously submitted that the advertisement clearly prescribes the educational qualification, which a candidate was required to possess. All the three candidates possessed the qualification and hence were appointed as 'Shikshan Sevaks'. Since the dispute in the management was pending before the appropriate authorities, the Head-master had officiated as the School Committee. Since the management was engrossed in the dispute, the Head-master had proceeded to initiate the process of selection and upon making the necessary appointments, the proposals of these Teachers were forwarded for grant of approval. They were approved. All the three Teachers performed their duties on the basis of the approval. Their salaries were paid as per the Rules.
14. It has been further submitted by the Teachers that their performance as probationers was without any blemishes. The management has not issued any memo or warning or an intimation indicating to the Teachers that their performance was not satisfactory and that they ought to improve their conduct.
15. On 5.11.2012, the change report of one group of the management was accepted. The said body took charge of the functioning of the institution on 6.11.2012. Two years prior thereto, the same group had preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 92 of 2010 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge S.D., seeking quashing of the appointments of these Teachers, on 26.4.2010. On 26.11.2012, after 19 months of the pendency of the suit, the said body withdrew the suit unconditionally from the Civil Court, thereby, giving up it's challenge to the appointments of the Teachers. On 29.11.2012, which is three days after the unconditional withdrawal of the suit, the termination orders were issued to the Teachers. Rule 15 of the the Maharashtra Em
