VISHWAKARMA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK AND GRAM VIKAS MANDAL AURANGABAD THROUGH PRESIDENT P S WADJE AND ORSversusBABURAO ANANDA RAHATE AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:9642
                                                1 of 9           04-WP.14560.2017




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               4 WRIT PETITION NO. 14560 OF 2017

                VISHWAKARMA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK AND GRAM VIKAS MANDAL
                    AURANGABAD THROUGH PRESIDENT P S WADJE AND ORS
                                                VERSUS
                            BABURAO ANANDA RAHATE AND ANOTHER
                                                   ...
               Mr. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for the Petitioners.
               Mr. Shrimant R. Kedar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                                   ...

                                        CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        DATE     :       4th MARCH 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

               2.        By the present petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the

               order dated 03.03.2017, passed by the learned School Tribunal,

               Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Appeal No.3 of 2016, whereby

               appeal filed by the Respondent No.1-Employee came to be allowed.


               3.        Mr. S. S. Kazi, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits

               that Petitioner No.1 is an Education Society registered under the

               Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 as well as under the Societies

               Registration Act. Petitioner No.2 is the Secretary and Petitioner No.3 is

               the Chief Executive Officer of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.4 is the

               Headmaster.


               4.        Mr. S. S. Kazi, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits
                               2 of 9        04-WP.14560.2017




that the Petitioners appointed Respondent No.1 from 01.09.2006

purely on temporary basis and more particularly, he submits that no

any appointment order came to be issued as per Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (for

short “MEPS Act”). He further submits that Respondent No.1 is having

qualification of B.P.Ed. and he was asked to work as a Headmaster.

Though his services were approved, but because of non-sanctioning of

the post and staffing pattern, his services were terminated w.e.f.

15.12.2014. As he was a temporary employee not possessing

qualification of D.Ed., which is an essential requirement to be

appointed as the Assistant Teacher of Primary School, the services of

Respondent No.1 were rightly terminated.


5.       In support of his contention, he relied upon the law laid

down by Full Bench of this Court, in the matter of Jayashree Sunil

Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2000 SCC OnLine

Bom 302 and also upon the order passed by this Court in the matter of

Milansar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Anr. Vs. Rizwana Parveen Sayed

Ahamad & Anr. In Writ Petition No.11951 of 2015, by contending that

though Respondent No. 1-Employee was appointed on the year-to-year

basis and though his services were approved, he was having

qualification of B.P.Ed only and he was not having qualification of

D.Ed. As he was a temporary employee, it was not necessary to hold
                                 3 of 9         04-WP.14560.2017




the inquiry under the MEPS Act and, therefore, by giving one month

notice, his services were terminated. But the learned School Tribunal

committed error while allowing the appeal.


6.        Per contra, Mr. S. R. Kedar, learned Advocate for the

Respondent No.1 supports the order passed by the learned School

Tribunal. He pointed out that since 2006 till 2014, Respondent No. 1

had worked continuously. Only after considering his qualification of

B.P.Ed., his services were duly approved by the Education Officer.


7.        He further submits as per Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act,

completion of two years of probation, he acquired permanency. As his

services were terminated by giving one month’s notice without

conducting an inquiry, the learned School Tribunal has rightly allowed

the appeal.


8.        Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties

and after going through the order passed by the School Tribunal.

There is no dispute about the fact that Respondent No.1 was appointed

in the year 2006, he was having B.P.Ed. qualification and his services

were also approved by the Education Officer from time to time. He

continuously worked from 01.09.2006 till the year 2014. To

considering the issue involved, it is useful to refer Section 5(2) of the

MEPS Act, which reads as under:-
                                   4 of 9          04-WP.14560.2017




     “5(2) Every person appointed to fill a permanent vacancy [except
     shikshan sevak] shall be on probation for a period of two years.
     Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), he shall, on
     completion of this probation period of two years, be deemed to
     have been confirmed.

     Provided that, every person appointed as shikshan sevak shall be
     on probation for a period of three years.

     (2A) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4),
     shikshan sevak shall, on completion of the probation period of
     three years, be deemed to have been appointed and confirmed as
     a teacher."

9.        Considering Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, it reveals that an

employee can be appointed on probation for a period of two years and

on completion of the said probation period, acquires permanency in

service. Admittedly, even as per the contention of the management,

Respondent No.1 continued in service beyond the probation period.

Therefore, merely because a termination order was subsequently issued

against Respondent No.1, his services could not have been terminated

in such a manner. Further it is required to be considered the Rule 36

and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of

Service) Rules, 1981 (for short “MEPS Rules”), which reads as under:-


     “Rule - 36. Inquiry Committee.

     (1) If an employee is allegedly found to be guilty on [any of the
     grounds specified in sub-rule (5) of rule 28] and the Management
     decides to hold an inquiry, it shall do so through a properly
     constituted Inquiry Committee. Such a committee shall conduct
     an inquiry only in such cases where major penalties are to be
     inflicted. The Chief Executive Officer authorised by the
     Management in this behalf (and in the case of an inquiry against t
     he Head who is also the Chief Executive Officer, the President of
     the Management) shall communicate to the employee or the Head
                              5 of 9           04-WP.14560.2017




concerned by registered post acknowledgement due the
allegations and demand from him a written explanation within
seven days from the date of receipt of the statement of allegations.

2)          [If the Chief Executive Officer or the President, as the
case may be, finds that the explanation submitted by the
employee or the Head referred to in sub-rule (1) is not
satisfactory, he shall place it before the Management within fifteen
days from the date of receipt of the explanation. The Management
shall in turn decide' within fifteen days whether an inquiry be
conducted against the employee and if it decides to conduct the
inquiry, the inquiry shall be conducted by an Inquiry Committee
constituted in the following manner, that is to say, -

(a)     in the case of an employee -

(i)     one member from amongst the members of the
Management to be nominated by the Management, or by the
President of the Management if so authorised by the
Management, whose name shall be communicated to the Chief
Executive Officer within 15 days from the date of the decision of
the Management;

(ii)   one member to be nominated by the employee from
amongst the employees of any private school;

(iii)   one member chosen by the Chief Executive Officer from
the panel of teachers on whom State/National Award has been
conferred;

(b)     in the case of the Head referred to in sub-rule (1)

(i)   one member who shall be the President of the
Management;

(ii)   one member to be nominated by the Head from amongst
the employees of any private school;

(iii)   one member chosen by the President from the panel of
Head Masters on whom State/National Award has been
conferred.]

(3)     The Chief Executive Officer or, as the case may be, the
President shall communicate the names of members nominated
under sub-rule (2) by registered post acknowledgement due to the
employee or the Head referred to in sub-rule (1), as the case may
be, directing him to nominate a person on his behalf on the
proposed Inquiry Committee and to forward the name alongwith
the written consent of the person so nominated to the Chief
Executive Officer or to the President, as the case may be, within
                              6 of 9           04-WP.14560.2017




fifteen days of the receipt of the communication to that effect.

(4)    If the employee or the Head, as the case may be,
communicates the name of the person nominated by him the
Inquiry Committee of three members shall be deemed to have
been constituted on the date of receipt of such communication by
the Chief Executive Officer or the President, as the case may be. If
the employee or such Head fails to communicate the name of his
nominee within the stipulated period, the Inquiry Committee shall
be deemed to have been constituted on expiry of the stipulated
period consisting of only two members as, provided in sub-rule
(2).

(5)      The Convener of the respective Inquiry Committee shall be
the nominee of the President, or as the case may be, the President
who shall initiate action pertaining to the conduct of the Inquiry
Committee and shall maintain all the relevant record of the
inquiry.

Rule - 37. Procedure of inquiry.

(1)     The Management shall prepare a charge-sheet containing
specific charges and shall hand over the same together with the
statement of allegations and the explanation of the employee or
the Head as the case may be, to the Convener of the Inquiry
Committee and also forward copies thereof to the employee or the
Head concerned by registered post acknowledgement due, within
7 days from the date on which the Inquiry Committee is deemed
to have been constituted.

(2)    (a) Within 10 days of the receipt of the copies of charge-
sheet and the statement of allegations by the employee or the
Head, as the case may be,-

(i)     If the employee or the Head, as the case may be, desires
to tender any written explanation to the charge-sheet, he shall
submit the same to the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee in
person or send it to him by the registered post acknowledgement
due.

(ii)   If the Management and the employee or the Head, as the
case may be, desire to examine any witnesses they shall
communicate in writing to the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee
the names of witnesses whom they propose to so examine, and

(iii)   If the Management desires to tender any documents by
way of evidence before the Inquiry Committee, it shall supply true
copies of all such documents to the employee or the Head, as the
case may be. If the document relied upon by the Management is a
                              7 of 9           04-WP.14560.2017




register or record of the school it shall permit the employee or the
Head as the case may be, to take out relevant extracts from such
register or record. The employee or the Head as the case may be,
shall supply to the Management true copies of all the documents
to be produced by him in evidence.

(b) Within 3 days after the expiry of the period of 10 days
specified in clause (a), the Inquiry Committee shall meet to
proceed with the inquiry and give 10 days notice by registered
post acknowledgement due to the Management and the employee
or the Head, as the case may be, to appear for producing
evidence, examining witnesses etc., if any.

(c) The Inquiry Committee shall see that every reasonable
opportunity is extended to the employee for defence of his case.

(d) (i) The Management shall have the right to lead evidence and
the right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of
the employee.

(ii) The employee shall have the right to be heard in person and
lead evidence. He shall also have the right to cross-examine the
witnesses examined on behalf of the Management.

(iii) Sufficient opportunities shall be given to examine all
witnesses notified by both the parties.

(e) All the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee shall be recorded
and the same together with the statement of witnesses shall be
endorsed by both the parties in token or authenticity thereof. The
refusal to endorse the same by either of the parties shall be
recorded by the Convener.

(f) The inquiry shall ordinarily be completed within a period 120
days from the date of first meeting of the Inquiry Committee or
from the date of suspension of the employee, whichever is earlier,
unless the Inquiry Committee has, in the special circumstances of
the case under inquiry, extended the period of completion of t he
inquiry with the prior approval of the Deputy Director. In case the
inquiry is to be completed within the period of 120 days or within
the extended period, if any, the employee shall cease to be under
suspension and shall be deemed to have rejoined duties, without
prejudice to continuance of the inquiry.

(3)    The Management and the employee or the Head, as the
case may be shall be responsible to see that their nominees and
the witnesses, if any, are present during the inquiry. However, if
the Inquiry Committee is convinced about the absence of either of
the parties to the dispute or any of the members of the Inquiry
                                     8 of 9           04-WP.14560.2017




      Committee on any valid ground, the Inquiry Committee shall
      adjourn that particular meeting of the Committee. The meeting so
      adjourned shall be conducted even in the absence of person
      concerned if he fails to remain present for the said adjourned
      meeting.

      (4)     The Convener of the Inquiry Committee shall forward to
      the employee or the Head, as the case may be a summary of the
      proceedings and copies of statements of witnesses, if any, by
      registered post acknowledgement due within four days of
      completion of the above steps and allow him a time of seven days
      to offer his further explanation, if any.

      (5)     The employee or the Head as the case may be shall submit
      his further explanation to the Convener of the Inquiry Committee
      within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the
      summary of proceedings etc., either personally or by registered
      post acknowledgement due.

      (6)     On receipt of such further explanation or if no explanation
      is offered within the aforesaid time the Inquiry Committee shall
      complete the inquiry and communicate its findings on the charges
      against the employee and its decision on the basis of these
      findings to the Management for specific action to be taken against
      the employee or the Head, as the case may be, within ten days
      after the date fixed for receipt of further explanation. It shall also
      forward a copy of the same by registered post acknowledgement
      due to the employee or the Head, as the case may be. A copy of
      the findings and decision shall also be endorsed to the Education
      Officer or the Deputy Director, as the case may be, by registered
      post acknowledgement due. Thereafter, the decision of the Inquiry
      Committee shall be implemented by the Management which shall
      issue necessary orders within seven days from the date of receipt
      of decision of the Inquiry Committee, by registered post
      acknowledgement due. The Management shall also endorse a
      copy of its order to the Education Officer or the Deputy Director
      as the case may be.”


10.        Admittedly,        Respondent         No.1-Employee           acquired

permanency and even if it is considered that there was no any order of

permanency, but fact remain that after 2006 to 2014, Respondent-

Employee had continuously worked with the management and,

therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the management to conduct
                                          9 of 9         04-WP.14560.2017




          an inquiry, but admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted and by

          giving one month notice, his services were terminated. As regards the

          judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Jayashree (supra) which was

          referred by Mr. Kazi, the same does not apply to the present set of

          facts. Here, in this case, Respondent No.1, though having qualification

          of B.P.Ed, but in addition to that, he was imparting teaching of other

          subjects as well and, therefore, only because he was not having a D.Ed

          qualification, the contention of the Petitioners cannot be accepted.

          Admittedly, no inquiry was conducted under Rule 36 and 37 and,

          therefore, Respondent No.1 being a permanent employee, the

          Petitioner-management was duty bound to conduct an inquiry, if they

          wanted to inflict the major punishment of termination.            By way of

          simple notice, the services of the permanent employee cannot be

          terminated.


          11.      In view thereof, I find that the learned School Tribunal has

          rightly considered the matter and I do not find any perversity in the

          order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned School Tribunal.


          12.      Hence, the present petition is dismissed.      No order as to

          costs.

                                            (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef