The court affirmed that an appointment made under the MEPS Act is valid despite subsequent statements of unwillingness, and transfers that reduce rank are illegal.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This petition takes an exception to the order passed by the School Tribunal in an appeal filed by respondent no. 1 [“respondent”] under Section 9 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 [“MEPS Act”]. By the impugned order, the appeal preferred by the respondent is allowed, and the order of reduction in rank of the appellant passed by the petitioners on 29th July 2017 is declared illegal, and the same is quashed and set aside. The School Tribunal directed the petitioners to appoint the respondent to his original post of Head Master with full back wages and pay all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the said directions, the petitioners, i.e. the Management and the School, have filed this petition invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1st December 1993 and was made permanent on 30th November 1995. On 26th May 2015, a resolution was passed to appoint the respondent as Head Master of petitioner no.2 – School. By order dated 26th May 2015 respondent was appointed as Head Master. Respondent joined the post of Head Master on 15th June 2015. Petitioner no.1 submitted a proposal with respondent no. 2 (‘Education Officer”) for approval of the respondent’s appointment to the promoted post of Head Master. On 1st July 2015, the respondent’s statement was recorded by the Education Officer stating that he was giving up his promotional post of Head Master of his own will. In view of the said statement, petitioner no. 1 addressed a letter dated 28th July 2015 to the Education Officer requesting to treat the proposal for the respondent’s appointment to the post of Head Master as cancelled. Though the respondent’s statement was recorded on 1st July 2015, he continued on the post of Head Master.

3. By letter dated 8th August 2015, the Education Officer granted permission to the respondent to sign the salary slips as he was appointed to the post of Head Master, but his appointment was not yet approved. Thereafter, on 29th July 2017, the petitioner no. 1 issued a letter of transfer to the respondent, transferring him to another school on the post of Assistant Teacher. On the same day another letter of appointment was issued appointing some other teacher as Head Master of petitioner no. 2 – school. Being aggrieved by the order of transfer, the respondent filed an appeal before the School Tribunal on the ground that the said order of transfer to the post of Assistant Teacher amounts to a reduction in rank. The School Tribunal, by the impugned order, has set aside the order of transfer amounting to a reduction in rank and directed the petitioners to appoint the respondent to his original post of Head Master. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statement recorded by the respondent before the Education Officer would amount to resigning from the post of Head Master. Hence, though the respondent was permitted to continue as In-charge Head Master, in view of the statement he had made, he was treated as resigned from the post of Head Master. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Rule 3 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981 [“MEPS Rules”]. She submitted that the senior most teacher who is proposed to be appointed to the post of Head Master is required to submit his willingness to accept the post within fifteen days from the date of proposal to appoint him as Head Master. She submits that after the proposal for approval of the respondent’s appointment to the post of Head Master was submitted before the Education Officer on 24th June 2015, the respondent recorded his statement of unwillingness to accept the post of Head Master before the Education Officer on 1st July 2015, i.e. within fifteen days. Hence, in view of the Explanation to Rule