The management of private schools must adhere to the mandatory provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules, including obtaining prior permission from the Education Officer before recruitment, to ensure the legality of appointments and terminations.

JUDGMENT

1. By the present Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner - original Appellant is challenging the legality and validity of judgment and order dtd. 7/4/2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur in Appeal No.99 of 2016. In said Appeal No.99 of 2016 filed under sec. 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "the M.E.P.S. Act"/"said Act"), the order of termination dtd. 18/10/2016 passed by the Respondent No.2 was challenged. Respondent No.1 is the Educational institution registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and Society Registration Act, 1860. Respondent No.1 established Respondent No.2 aided school viz. Bramhaling Vidyalaya Hajgoli, Tal. Chandgad, District Kolhapur. Respondent No.3 is the Educational Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur who is the sanctioning authority and has the control over the secondary schools in the District.

2. By the impugned order dtd. 7/4/2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur the said Appeal No.99 of 2016 was partly allowed. The prayer for setting aside order of termination dtd. 18/10/2016 and for reinstatement with back-wages was rejected. However, the Respondent No.1 was directed as per sec. 11(2)(e) of M.E.P.S. Act to pay as compensation to the Petitioner full salary of six months which was lastly paid to him. It was further directed that the Petitioner shall have preferential right for the post when there will be clear permanent vacancy for selection post.

3. I have heard extensively Mr.Bhavake, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Rajeshirke, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP for the Respondent No.3 and Mr. Umesh Pawar, learned counsel for the Applicant in IA No.358 of 2022.

4. Mr. Bhavake submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to take 2 into consideration the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short "M.E.P.S. Rules"/"said Rules"). He submitted that the Petitioner was appointed by following the due process of selection w.e.f. 15/6/2012 as Shikshan Sevak (Assistant Teacher Probationary). He successfully completed his probationary period of three years and became deemed permanent in his service as per Sec. 5(2A) of the said Act. The Petitioner completed his probationary period on 14/6/2015 and is confirmed in service as Assistant Teacher in regular pay-scale w.e.f. 15/6/2015 and the proposal to that effect is also submitted to the Education Officer. However, by the said termination order dtd. 18/10/2016, his services were terminated on the ground that there is possibility that the department would send surplus teacher in the school. He submitted that in the appeal before the Tribunal the same was proceeded against the Respondent No.3 ex-parte and in the present Petition, Respondent No.3 has filed affidavit. However, it is not stated that surplus teacher was available for absorption on the date of appointment of the Petitioner. He submitted that the Petitioner has become deemed permanent in view of sec. 5(2A) of M.E.P.S. Act and therefore, his services cannot be terminated without following due procedure as provided under Rules 28, 33, 36 and 37 of the M.E.P. S. Rules. He also relied on sec. 4(6) of the M.E.P.S. Act. His main contention is that services of the Petitioner were terminated without following due process of law as provided under the M.E.P.S. Act and M.E.P.S. Rules and therefore, the said termination order is illegal. According to him, the Petitioner has been selected by conducting regular selection process and learned School Tribunal has recorded finding confirming the same. He submitted that once the learned Tribunal records the finding that the Petitioner was appointed by following regular selection process, his services cannot be terminated without follo