SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)
ROHIT B. DEO, J.
Lady Yashodabai Joshi Ladies Club & Anr. – Appellants
Vs.
Smt. Shilpa Sanjay Khandekar & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2354 of 2022
Decided on : 12-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. J. T. Gilda, Mr. A. J. Gilda
For the Respondent: Mr. V. A. Kothale, Mr. S. M. Ukey

The principle of common seniority as prescribed in Rules 27(d) and (e) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Rules, 1981 must be followed while effecting termination under Rule 25A of the Rules.

Headnote:

Termination - School Tribunal - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Rules, 1981 - [Termination] - [School Tribunal] - [Rules 25A, 26, 27] - The court discussed the provisions of Rules 25A, 26, and 27 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Rules, 1981, and the decision of the Full Bench in Kanhaiyyalal s/o Sonbaji Gajbhiye vs. Bhartiya Jagruti Shikshan Sanstha & Ors., 2021(3) All MR 21, which held that while effecting termination under Rule 25A of the Rules, the principle of common seniority as prescribed in Rules 27(d) and (e) of the Rules must be followed. The court also considered the issue of common seniority as only incidental to the issue of legality of termination under Rule 25A of the Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The employee challenged the termination notice dated 16-4-2019 made effective from 16-7-2019 purporting to terminate her from the post of Assistant Teacher. The management is assailing the judgment and order dated 01-4-2022 rendered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati (Tribunal) in Appeal 12/2020.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal held that the notice of termination is illegal and the employee is entitled to the relief considering the admitted fact that the management is administering multiple schools and that the educational qualification for appointment in Marathi medium and English medium is not different.

Issues: The primary issue was the legality of the termination notice dated 16-4-2019 and the entitlement of the employee to service benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice of termination is illegal since the procedure contemplated in Rule 27(d) and (e) of the Rules is not followed. The court also discussed the burden of proof regarding the employee's gainful employment and the principles laid down in previous judgments.

Final Decision: The petition is partly allowed, and the court confirmed the findings and the reliefs and the directions issued by the Tribunal. The court directed the management to pay the employee 50% of the back-wages from the date of termination till the delivery of the judgment by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.A. Kothale, learned Counsel for respondent 1 and Mr. S.M. Ukey, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent 2.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, the petition is heard finally.

3. Petitioner 1 is a registered Public Trust, which administers petitioner 2-school (petitioners shall be collectively referred to as “the management”).

4. The management is assailing the judgment and order dated 01-4-2022 rendered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati (Tribunal) in Appeal 12/2020, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent 1 (employee) is partly allowed, the notice of termination dated 16-4-2019 is set aside, the employee is deemed to be in continuous service from 16-7-2019 and is held entitled to all service benefits excluding the benefit of earned leave, the management is directed to pay full back-wages to the employee from 16-7-2019 till the date of judgment, the management is directed to follow the procedure contemplated in Rule 27(d) and (e) read with Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (Rules) and the employee is held entitled to full salary from 02-4-2022 till the compliance of the directions supra.

5. PLEADINGS IN APPEAL 12/2020 :

(i) The employee approached the Tribunal challenging the termination notice dated 16-4-2019 made effective from 16-7-2019 purporting to terminate her from the post of Assistant Teacher.

(ii) The employee holds qualifications B.Sc. B.Ed. and was appointed as Assistant Teacher in clear and permanent vacancy by following the due recruitment process vide order dated 13-9-2001. The Education Officer approved the services of the employee.

(iii) The management administers the Golden Kids English/ Marathi High School, Amravati, which imparts instructions in English, Marathi and Semi-English medium.

(iv) The management did not pay the employee salary in accordance with the Rules and she along with her colleagues preferred Writ Petition 4172/2017. Writ Petition 7979/2017 was preferred against the management seeking service benefits like maintenance of common seniority of teachers in the schools administer by the management.

(v) During the pendency of the writ petitions supra, the notice of termination impugned was issued which the employee challenged by preferring Civil Application 2757/2019 in Writ Petition 7979/2017, which application the High Court disposed of vide order dated 15-10-2019 reserving liberty to challenge the termination before the appropriate forum.

(vi) Recognition was granted to the management to administer the Golden Kids High School from 1997-98 on permanent no grant-in-aid basis for imparting instructions in English medium parallelly with Marathi medium from standard 5th to 10th.

(vii) Hoping to receive grant-in-aid in future, the management submitted proposal dated 13-4-2007 to the Education Department for converting the Marathi medium classes from permanent no grant-in-aid basis to no grant-in-aid basis and for grant of permission to appoint independent Headmaster. In response to the said proposal, the Education Department issued communication dated 28-11-2007 permitting appointment of independent Headmaster for the Marathi medium classes, subject to certain conditions.

(viii) On the basis of the communication dated 28-11-2007 the management took a stand that there are two segments i.e. English medium and Marathi medium and, therefore, two separate schools.

(ix) The employee contends that in response to protests by the teachers in the Marathi medium segment, the Education Officer conducted an enquiry and held that the management is required to maintain a common seniority list.

(x) The employee came to be appointed on 18-6-2001, and admittedly at the relevant time, even according to the management, the same school was imparting instructions partially in English medium and partially in Marathi medium for standa

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top