Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2155
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Janabai Nivrutti Saune – Appellant
Versus
Dharmveer Shambhuraje Shikshan Prasarak Mandal – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11554 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rahul S. Kadam
For the Respondents: Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, a/w. Om N. Latpate, Mr. P. P. Pujari
Termination of service requires adherence to seniority principles; failure to establish seniority undermines claims for wrongful dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 - Section 11 and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981 - Termination of service of employee - The Tribunal has determined the termination to be illegal but denied reinstatement, awarding six months' salary as compensation. (Paras 3, 24)
(B) Principle of Retrenchment - It must observe seniority unless justified otherwise - The petitioner failed to provide a seniority list and was determined junior to other teachers, which justified her termination under appropriate regulations. (Paras 15, 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner was terminated from her Assistant Teacher position based on surplus staff reasoning. The termination was challenged and deemed illegal for procedural reasons, but the appeal for reinstatement was denied.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's ruling favored financial compensation instead of reinstatement.
Issues: The primary issues involved the principle of seniority in retrenchment and the validity of termination within regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that seniority must be observed unless proven otherwise, confirming the absence of right to reinstatement in this case.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges termination after tribunal ruling. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims wrongful termination based on seniority. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. importance of adherence to seniority in hiring processes. (Para 10 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court observes procedural errors in termination. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court dismisses the petition, upholding tribunal's decision. (Para 23 , 24) |
1. Rule.
2. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06 January 2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune (Tribunal). Petitioner had challenged order dated 01 February 2020 terminating her service w.e.f. 06 February 2020 in her Appeal No.14 of 2020 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the appeal holding that Petitioner’s termination was against the provisions of law. However instead of granting reinstatement, the Tribunal has directed the management to pay 6 months’ salary to her in lieu of compensation as per Section 11 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act 1977 in addition to costs of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal to the extent of denial of relief of reinstatement in service.
4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner holds educational qualification as H.S.C., D.Ed. She belongs to Special Backward Class (S.B.C.) category. An advertisement was issued by the respondent management for filling up the post of Assistant Teacher on 29 February 2012. Petitioner applied in pursuance of the advertisement and came to be selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 01 January 2013.
5. Shortly after appointment of Petitioner, two more Assistant Teachers Vede Shahaji Baban and Bhandare Sharad Subhash were appointed as Assistant Teachers on 01 March 2013. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune granted approval to petitioner’s appointment vide order dated 17 July 2014. By the same order, approval was also granted to appointment of other two teachers Vede Shahaji Baban and Bhandare Sharad Subhash.
6. Petitioner’s services were terminated on 08 August 2017 on account of cancellation of approval by the Education Officer vide letter dated 01 August 2017. She challenged the termination order by filing appeal No.06 of 2018 before the Tribunal. The appeal was partly allowed setting aside the termination order and directing respondent management to reinstate her in service. Petitioner was accordingly reinstated in service.
7. It appears that a letter was issued to Petitioner on 15 November 2019 giving her an intimation that she was rendered surplus in accordance with sanctioned strength approved for the year 2015-16 to 2018-19. Accordingly, termination order dated 01 August 2020 was issued to Petitioner terminating her service with effect from 06 February 2020 on the ground that one post of Assistant Teacher for 5th Standard was reduced in the approved sanctioned strength of the school for the year 2015-16 to 2018-19 and the post held by the Petitioner against S.B.C. reservation was rendered surplus.
8. Petitioner challenged the termination order dated 01 November 2020 before the Tribunal by filing appeal No.14 of 2020. Respondent management filed reply resisting the appeal. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 06 January 2022 proceeded to partly allow the appeal holding that termination of Petitioner was illegal. However, it refused to grant relief of reinstatement, but granted compensation in the form of 6 months’ salary in addition to costs of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06 January 2022 to the extent of denial of relief of reinstatement and has accordingly filed the present petition.
9. Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner would submit that the Respondent management did not fo
