IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement of prior approval from the Education Officer for retrenchment under Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the termination of employment unlawful.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Petitioner-Management has fled this petition challenging Judgment and Order dtd. 12/2/2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur partly allowing the Appeal fled by Respondent No.1. The School Tribunal has set aside the termination order dtd. 10/11/2012 and has directed the PetitionerManagement to reinstate her in original post with continuity of service and full backwages. The Tribunal has further directed the PetitionerManagement to follow the provisions of Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (the Rules of 1981) and report the compliance in respect of initiation of process under Rule 26 to the Tribunal.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 as well as a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Trust runs a School by name, Parvatibai Nananaware High School at Khandali, Taluka-Malshiras, District-Solapur. By letter dtd. 28/9/2004, the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Solapur sanctioned one additional division for Class-9 for the Academic Year 2001-02 on non-grant basis considering increase in the number of students in the School for Class-9. Respondent No.1 came to be appointed as Part Time Assistant Teacher on temporary basis vide Order dtd. 10/6/2005 in view of sanction of one additional division for Class-9 vide Order dtd. 28/9/2004. Petitioner-Management sent a proposal for grant of personal approval to the appointment of Respondent No.1 to the Education Officer on 16/2/2006. The proposal was however rejected by the Education Officer vide reply dtd. 25/7/2008 for various reasons including non-submission of staffing pattern and roster. Petitioner-Management therefore issued advertisement dtd. 22/6/2008 in the newspapers including applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Part Time Assistant Teachers on nongrant basis for Geography subject. Respondent No.1 requested the Management to appoint her against the advertisement so issued. The Petitioner-Management appointed Respondent No.1 as Part Time Assistant Teacher in additional division of Class-9 and submitted proposals to the Education Officer for grant of approval to the appointment of Respondent No.1. By order dtd. 8/6/2011, the Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of Respondent No.1 as Part Time Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 13/6/2005.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner-Management that there was reduction in the number of students in the School in the Academic Year 2012-13. That upto the year 2011-12, the sanctioned posts of Teachers was 17.5 and Respondent No.1 was working against 0.5 sanctioned post on part time basis. That in the Academic Year 2012-13, the sanctioned strength was reduced by the Education Officer to 17, on account of which one part time post got reduced. The Petitioner-Management therefore terminated the services of Respondent No.1 by letter dtd. 10/10/2012. The Management informed the Education Officer about termination of services of Respondent No.1 vide letter dtd. 5/11/2012.

4. Respondent No.1 initially challenged the termination order dtd. 10/2/2012 by instituting Regular Civil Suit No. 1444 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Malshiras. The Plaint was however returned on account of objection raised by the PetitionerManagement about jurisdiction vide Order dtd. 3/5/2013. Respondent No.1 thereafter approached the School Tribunal, Solapur by fling Appeal under the provisions of Sec. 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (the Act of 1977). The Appeal was resisted by the Petitioners by fling its Written Statement. After hearing both the sides, the School Tribunal has partly allowed the Appeal and has set aside the termination order dtd. 10/10/2012 with further directions to the Petit