Bombay High Court
SOPAN NAMDEO KALEversusTHE SECRETARY AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK SAMAJ AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
A teacher appointed to a clear, vacant permanent post who serves continuously and completes the statutory probation period becomes a permanent employee, and any termination without due disciplinary procedure is illegal despite the employer’s issuance of yearly temporary appointment orders.
Summary
The petitioner, Sopan Namdeo Kale, was appointed as a teacher in 2003 to a clear, vacant permanent post but was issued yearly appointment orders that labelled his service as temporary. After serving continuously for fifteen years, the management refused to allow him to join duty in 2017 and terminated him, prompting an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which the School Tribunal dismissed. The High Court examined the statutory provisions, noting that Section 5(2) mandates probation for two (now three) years for permanent vacancies and that completion of probation confers permanent status, irrespective of the management’s annual orders. It held that the management’s practice of issuing yearly temporary orders could not defeat the statutory intent and that the petitioner had become a permanent employee entitled to protection from termination without a disciplinary enquiry. Consequently, the Court quashed the Tribunal’s order, reinstated the petitioner, and awarded him fifty percent back‑wages from the date of termination.
Issues considered
- Whether a teacher appointed to a clear, vacant permanent post and serving continuously for fifteen years can be deprived of permanency solely because the management issues yearly appointment orders on a temporary basis
- Whether an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 can be dismissed on the ground that the employee was not a permanent employee
- Whether a permanent teacher who has served continuously for fifteen years can be terminated without a departmental enquiry under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981
Legislation cited
Subjects
- permanent appointment
- temporary appointment
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act
- back wages
- termination
- educational institutions
- service tenure
- probation
- employment law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42598
1
wp-1637-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
District: Ahmednagar
WRIT PETITION NO.1637 OF 2023
Sopan Namdeo Kale
Age: 49 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o: Dehre, Taluka Nagar,
District: Ahmednagar
…..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Secretary,
Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj,
Laltaki Road, Ahmednagar.
2. The Principal,
Shri. Mulikadevi Jr. College, Nighoj,
Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
Pune Region, Pune
…..RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________
Mr. S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. V. D. Hon, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. H. A. Karad i/b Mr. A. V.
Hon, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2
Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for respondent no.3
______________________________________________________
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026
2
wp-1637-2023
JUDGMENT :- (Per Court)
1. Subject-matter : Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and
Order dated 18.07.2022 delivered by the learned Presiding
Officer of the School Tribunal, Pune (Solapur Region) in
Appeal No.09 of 2019, the employee/appellant has preferred
this Writ Petition.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the parties
for final disposal at their instance.
3. Facts in brief:
a. In the year 2003, the respondent management
published an advertisement to fill up some posts of Teachers
in its school.
b. By due procedure, the Petitioner came to be appointed
on a clear, vacant and permanent post. Initially the
appointment was on part time basis which was subsequently
made on full time basis.
c. Deputy Director of Education approved Petitioner’s
appointment and services. Since 2003 the Petitioner
continuously served the school and the management.
3
wp-1637-2023
d. On the other hand, the Management kept on issuing
appointment order in the name of the Petitioner on year to
year basis, despite the Petitioner having been appointed on
clear, vacant and permanent post.
e. In the year 2017, the management didn’t allow the
Petitioner to join the duty. Hence the Petitioner filed an
appeal u/s 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for brevity “the
act of 1977”) before the School Tribunal Pune, Solapur
region.
f. The Management defended the appeal disputing that
the Petitioner was a permanent employee. It also disputed
that the Petitioner was ever terminated orally. With these
objections, the management prayed to dismiss the appeal.
g. The School Tribunal heard the parties and pleased to
dismiss the appeal accepting Management’s aforesaid two
objections.
Hence this petition.
4
wp-1637-2023
4. Submissions:
Mr. S. S. Jadhavar, learned advocate for the Petitioner
would submit that,
a. Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed by due process
of law. The appointment was approved by the competent
authority.
b. On account of continuous service of fifteen years, the
Petitioner earned permanency, irrespective of the record
prepared by the management to show his appointment on
yearly basis.
c. Despite the record prepared by the management as
aforesaid, Petitioner’s appointment is governed by Section
5(2) of the Act of 1977.
d. The Tribunal erred in not correctly appreciating the
provisions of law, and the law developed in this field.
e. There is no reason why a permanent employee who
rushes to the School Tribunal would have voluntarily left the
job. In fact the management disallowed him from signing the
muster and caused otherwise termination.
5
wp-1637-2023
Learned advocate Mr. V. D. Hon for the respondent
management submits that,
f. The Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and
was not amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the School
Tribunal u/s 9 of the Act of 1977.
g. In view of the appointment orders issued from year to
year, it is clear that the Petitioner was not at all appointed on
permanent basis.
h. The Petitioner has voluntarily waived the job, and later
filed the appeal to take undue advantage of his own wrong.
i. The School Tribunal has passed a reasoned judgment
which do not call for any interference of this Court in Writ
Petition.
5. Issues for consideration:
Considering the pleadings and the rival arguments, I
record following core issues for consideration.
i. While a Teacher serving continuously for fifteen years
and having been appointed by due process under
advertisement on a clear, vacant and permanent post; and
while the Deputy Director of Education has approved his
6
wp-1637-2023
appointment; whether if such teacher could be deprived of the
status of permanency only if the Management has kept on
issuing appointment orders on year to year basis.
ii. Whether if in above circumstances, an appeal u/s 9 of
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act 1977 can be dismissed observing that
the employee was not a permanent employee.
iii. Whether if a permanent teacher having served
continuously for fifteen years could be terminated without
conducting departmental enquiry under the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules
1981.
Consideration:
1. Petitioner’s qualification and the mode of appointment
is not in dispute. Petitioner was well qualified for being
appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, and the
respondent management appointed the Petitioner on the
subject-matter post after conducting due procedure. An
advertisement was published inviting applications from the
suitable candidates. Selection procedure was conducted, and
the Petitioner was appointed.
7
wp-1637-2023
2. The issue is about nature of Petitioner’s appointment
and the factum of his discharge from the job.
2.1. While Petitioner submits that he has earned status
of a permanent employee, respondent management
contends that he was purely on a temporary basis. The
School Tribunal negated Petitioner’s contention, and
upheld management’s defense.
2.2. While Petitioner alleges otherwise termination
(oral termination) at the hands of the respondent-
management, they came up with a case of voluntary
absence from duty by the Petitioner. The Tribunal
discarded Petitioner’s case and accepted managements’
defense.
3. I have gone through the sequential appointment orders
issued by the Management appointing petitioner on the
subject-matter post and continuing him. The appointment
orders consistently show appointments on temporary basis on
clear, vacant post; however always on annual basis.
4. The non-disputed fact that the Deputy Director of
Education, Pune approved Petitioner’s appointment and
service from time to time also confirms that the Petitioner was
8
wp-1637-2023
lawfully appointed and was in continuous service on the
subject-matter post.
Nature of appointment and status of Petitioner
5. Management’s first substantial objection is that the
appointment was always on temporary basis and meant for a
specified period.
6. Perusal of the appointment orders would clearly show
that those were issued by the Management maintaining its
own mechanism dehors the law. During 2003 (w.e.f.
09.07.2003) till 2009 (i.e. till 15.06.2009), Petitioner was
appointed as a part time teacher on non-grant basis. The
appointment orders, as observed supra, are issued on year to
year basis.
7. Vide order dated 16.09.2010, the respondent
management appointed the Petitioner on Full Time post of
Teacher again keeping it for an academic year. This was
continued until 2017. Tenure of Petitioner’s last service period
is seen as 16.06.2017 to 30.04.2018.
9
wp-1637-2023
8. In all the appointment orders it is mentioned that the
appointment was on purely temporary basis and in the
mentioned pay scale applicable to the subject-matter post. In
no appointment order it is seen that the appointment was
against a vacancy meant for any reservation category. All the
appointments stood approved by the Deputy Director of
Education, Pune from time to time.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the subject-matter post was
of a clear, vacant and permanent nature.
10. It is a trite law that every appointment made u/s 5(2) of
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act 1977 must be made on probation, and
upon completion of probation period such appointee has to be
confirmed as a permanent employee.
11. There had been amendments in the year 2007 to the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1977. A new subsection 2-A was
incorporated into Section 5 of the Act. The probation of Two
years was extended by additional one year making total Three
years for the Shikshan Sevaks.
10
wp-1637-2023
12. A beneficial reference can be made to a Judgment and
Order delivered by this Court in the case of New Education
Institute Nashik and ors. Vs. Mehajabin Ashfak reported at
2008 (1) AIR Bom.R 256. Paragraph No.10 of the judgment
reads thus:
10. Section 5(2) expressly provides that when
any person is appointed to fill a clear
permanent vacancy, he shall be appointed on
probation for period of two years. Thus, the
management ought to have appointed
respondent No. 1 for a period of two years and
not limited the appointment for a period of one
year. Rule 9 is explicit as it indicates the
manner in which the vacancy is to be filled.
Thus, it was incumbent on the petitioners to
appoint respondent No. 1 on probation for 2
years against the permanent clear vacancy.
13. The aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to
the present case. While the statute mandates the mode of
appointments on probation for clear, vacant and permanent
post, the Managements can not venture its own mechanism to
keep an employee forever in hanging position.
14. A reply affidavit filed by the management is on record.
It is disputed that the subject-matter post was clear and vacant
post (paragraph No.9). This statement on oath is absolutely
hostile to the terms and conditions spelled out in the
appointment orders.
11
wp-1637-2023
Copies of the appointment orders clearly show that the
subject-matter post was a clear and vacant post. Unless it is,
the Deputy Director of Education would not have granted
approval at the request of the Management.
15. Section 5(2A) is a supplement to Section 5(1) which
makes the probation for Shikshan Sevaks for a period of three
years. Meaning thereby, a Shikshan Sevak who completes
probationary period of Three years stands confirmed as a
Teacher/Assistant Teacher.
16. The object behind legislating these two provision is
clear. This is to curb the typical management strategy to keep
the ‘On/Off’ switch of its employees’ service, always under its
thumb.
17. I do not subscribe to the defense raised by the
Management that because the Petitioner every time accepted
the appointment orders, he is estopped from disputing the
mode of appointment nor he can put allegations against the
Management. As observed, the law says that every clear,
vacant and permanent post must be filled in by appointing a
suitable employee on probation. Upon completion of
probation, such employee becomes permanent employee.
12
wp-1637-2023
By accepting to join pursuant to the appointment order,
the Petitioner can not be held disqualified to seek
permanency. There can not be estoppel against law.
18. The management can not take undue advantage of the
needy for a job. A needy person has no wisdom to bargain.
Had the Petitioner questioned the nature of the stipulation in
the appointment order which is dehors the law, certainly he
would have lost the opportunity. The management obviously
had options to accommodate the next one who is more needy,
and who is ready to bow down and to surrender to the riders.
19. It is rather worrying that a very responsible authority
i.e. the Deputy Director of Education, Pune has travelled hand
in hand with the Management for carrying and continuing
such illegality. It was the duty of the said authority to question
the Management since Petitioner’s initial appointment. On the
other hand, the Deputy Director of Education has irresponsibly
issued approval orders on annual basis confirming the illegal
mode adopted by the respondent Management. Everything has
been done under the nose of this authority. Had the Deputy
Director of Education exercised his authority timely and
honestly, the management could not have dared to keep its
13
wp-1637-2023
employees consistently under its thumb. This not only gives
birth to the unwarranted litigation, but also adversely affects
the performance of the staff due to the constant apprehension
of uncertainty to the job security.
20. The record speaks that the Deputy Director of Education
Pune was party to the appeal before the School Tribunal, still
there also no comment is made by him on the conduct of the
respondent management.
21. Reliance placed by the respondent management in case
of Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe Vs. S.B. Gupta and ors. reported
at (2005) 7 SCC 724 may not be of any avail to the
respondent management for substantial difference in facts. In
the said case the High Court of Karnataka has exercised
revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
1908 to interfere into the order passed by the Tribunal. The
Honorable Supreme Court disapproved such interference u/s
115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908. The case therein was
under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act. The
employee therein was relieved while under probation. He
again joined the job only for a limited period with a written
undertaking that in terms of the invitation to rejoin the duties,
14
wp-1637-2023
he has joined. Then the employee questioned his release from
the service. As such, with due respect I record that this
citation is of no avail to the respondent management.
22. Learned advocate for the respondent management also
relies upon a view taken by the Honorable Supreme Court in
the case of Hindustan Education Society and anr. Vs. Sk.
Kaleem and ors. reported at (1997) 5 SCC 152. With due
respect, I opine that the said citation is also not applicable to
the present case. The cited case was of an employee who was
only appointed for a period of 11 months. In the case in hand,
the subject-matter post is apparently clear, vacant and
permanent. Admittedly, the respondent management
published an advertisement and then the Petitioner was
appointed (emph. Paragraph No.6 of the reply affidavit). It
was not an appointment of one specified period. For 15 years
the Petitioner was continued in service by issuing appointment
orders in continuity, although separately in each year. The
Deputy Director of Education has also approved the
appointments thereby confirming that the subject-matter post
was clear, vacant and permanent.
15
wp-1637-2023
Hence on account of substantial difference in the facts,
this citation is of no avail to the respondent management.
23. Considering that the Petitioner was continuously served
for 15 years on the subject-matter post- may be by separate
appointment orders, I am of the considered view that such
method devised by the management neither can be hostile to
the mandate of law nor can defeat the object of the Law.
Petitioner’s appointment itself was on clear, vacant and
permanent post. By virtue of the continuous appointment -
although devised by separate appointment orders, the
Petitioner earns status of a permanent teacher.
24. Learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal ought
to have considered the law governing the field. There are
absolutely no justifiable reasons from the end of the
Management as to what tempted it to take exception to
Section 5(2) of the Act of 1977. Merely contending that the
appointment was purely on temporary basis and for a specific
period does not justify departure to Section 5(2) of the Act of
1977. Meandering the law and procedure must be deprecated.
16
wp-1637-2023
Another beneficial reference can be made to a
Judgment and Order delivered by this Court in the case of
Abdul Rafique Vs. Yavatmal Islamiya Anglo Urdu Education
society and ors. reported at 2015 (1) Bom.C.R. 804
25. Thus, I find that the School Tribunal erred in holding
that the Petitioner was not a regular employee and that he
could not have maintained the prayers as prayed therein.
Oral termination
26. Now so far second issue of ‘oral termination’ is
concerned, the management has taken a stand that the
Petitioner voluntarily left the services. It is also stated that the
Petitioner was charged for mass copy and disregard towards
duty. That, since the Petitioner was found guilty for the
charges, a notice was issued on 18.11.2004 and an action was
initiated against the Petitioner as per the directions from the
‘Divisional Office’. It is further stated that later in 2017-2018,
there were complaints against the Petitioner about
misbehavior with female students and the Petitioner was
beaten by the parents of the students. It is submitted that the
Petitioner left the job voluntarily under apprehension of being
beaten by the parents.
17
wp-1637-2023
27. There is nothing before this Court about the alleged
incident of 2004 and action, if any taken to its logical end by
the management against the Petitioner. Although the
management submits that the Petitioner tendered written
assurance not to repeat any ill act, fact remains that the
petitioner was continued in his service.
28. So far as the incidences of 2017-2018 are concerned,
copy of a letter dated 11.11.2017 written by the Headmaster
of the Mulikadevi Secondary School to the Secretary of the
Management and a newspaper cutting is filed alongwith reply
affidavit in the Writ Petition. Recitals of the first annexures
show that the headmaster intimated to the management about
complaint by some parents and assault on the Petitioner by
the parents. The another annexure i.e. newspaper cutting does
not recite Petitioner’s name or School name.
29. May it be, fact remains that the respondent
management did not initiate any disciplinary proceeding
against the Petitioner pursuant to the alleged misconduct. A
bare statement that on 18.11.2004, a notice was issued to the
Petitioner is not sufficient to take departure from the further
disciplinary proceeding. It is vaguely stated that as per
18
wp-1637-2023
Divisional Office’s instructions the notice was issued. Which
and whose divisional office, is not clarified. On query, learned
advocate could not explain it. Copy of the said notice is not
placed before me nor also what happened to its service on the
Petitioner, and any response pursuant to this etc. is placed
before me.
30. May it be, I refrain myself from commenting upon the
nature of the complaint and its genuineness. However for the
purpose of present controversy, the management was under
obligation to take up disciplinary proceedings against the
Petitioner considering the serious complaint. Failure to take
up such disciplinary proceedings under the Rules of 1981
strengthens the arguments of the Petitioner for carving out
adverse inference against the management.
31. I have rendered my findings on both the issues under
debate with elaborate reasoning.
32. Management’s defense on both issues i.e. nature of
appointment and otherwise termination is hit by the basic
principle of Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua
propria (one can not take benefit of his own wrong).
19
wp-1637-2023
33. The findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal are liable to be struck down.
34. Before parting, I must record my findings on one more
objection raised by the respondent Management in its reply
affidavit filed on date of final hearing.
One additional objection as could be seen in the reply
affidavit is referring to Rule 9(a) of Rule 9 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules 1981 [“1981 Rules” for brevity]. The said
provision reads thus:
(9) (a) In case it is not possible to fill in the
teaching post for which a vacancy is reserved
for a person belonging to a particular category
of Backward Classes, the post may be filled in
by selecting a candidate from the other
remaining
categories in the order specified in sub-rule (7)
and if no person from any of the categories is
available, the post may be filed in temporarily
on an year to-year basis by a candidate not
belonging to the Backward Classes.
35. I am constrained to observe that this is not only a feeble
attempt, but absolutely an absurd defense by the respondent
management. There is nothing, absolutely nothing on record
showing that the subject-matter post was reserved for ‘X’
category, and for want of availability of suitable candidate
20
wp-1637-2023
from such category – the Petitioner was appointed for a
limited period. Merely reference of Rule 9A of the 1981 Rules
in the formatted appointment order neither make
appointment temporary and against a reserved vacancy. At no
point of time the Deputy Director of Education has observed
anything in either of the approval order that the subject-
matter post was reserved for ‘X’ category and that the
Petitioner’s appointment was a time-gap arrangement on
temporary basis.
36. My view and opinion as expressed in forgoing
paragraphs goes in tune with the observations made by this
Court in the case of Matoshri Ramabai Ambedkar Vidyarthi
Vasatigruh Trust and another Vs. V.Bharat D Hambir and anr.
reported at 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1234. This Court observed
thus:
5A. Of late, there is a growing tendency of
managements of private schools to appoint
temporary employees from year to year, even
though the vacancy is permanent and an
adequate work load is available. This leads to
grave uncertainty for teachers and places them
at the mercy of the managements. The
temporary appointment of a teacher who
questions unethical practices of the management
is promptly terminated. He or she who questions
is cast away. Those who turn a blind eye or
21
wp-1637-2023
worse, become willing participants in a pattern
of exploitation, are retained. This is a perversion
of what was intended by the State legislation
enacted in 1977. Placing teachers in a state of
eternal uncertainty is destructive of the cause of
education. In numerous cases before this Court,
the grievance is that teachers of aided
institutions are being subjected to extortionate
demands by unscrupulous managements.
Education has become a business and
managements of private schools, with notable
exceptions, are becoming pirates in the high seas
of education. The interpretation of section 5 of
the Act must be purposive - one that would
attain the statutory object and not lead to a
negation of statutory intent. Once a permanent
vacancy arises, a management is duty bound
statutorily to fill it up by appointing a duly
qualified candidate on probation. The vacancy
must be advertised to allow equal opportunity to
eligible candidates. A regular process of selection
must be held. A duly qualified candidate has to
be appointed. Temporary appointments can by
definition be made when the vacancy is
temporary. In such cases, the exigencies of
education require that students must be
imparted education and a vacancy even for a
short period will cause serious hardship. But
temporary appointments are an exception.
Making temporary appointments the rule is to
give a tool of subversion to the hands of
unethical managements. Temporary
appointments, followed as a practice become a
tool of subversion because they perpetuate a
regime of uncertainty about service, place the
teacher in a position of perpetual fear and
deprive the teacher of the stability needed to
contribute to the process of moulding young
minds. This Court must emphasise with all the
authority at its command that a subversion of
statutory intent should not be allowed. The
Court will not allow itself to be a mute by
22
wp-1637-2023
stander to the growing trend of a lack of ethics
in the management of private schools. Judicial
intervention is warranted in order to preserve
the statutory intent.
6. The position of the law which I have
formulated finds elaboration in Mr. Justice
R.M.S. Khandeparkar's judgment in President,
Mahila Mandal Sinnar v. Sunita Bansidhar
Patole, 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 105 thus:
“Merely because the management chooses to
issue appointment orders every year, the
appointment of the respondent ipso facto cannot
become a temporary one. The Management is
bound by the provisions of law comprised under
MEPS Act in relation to the appointments of
teachers. Once it is not in dispute that vacancy
which was filled by the appointment of the
respondent was a permanent vacancy, as such
appointment was after following the procedure
prescribed for appointing a person in permanent
vacancy irrespective of the appointment letters
being issued every year, the appointment of the
respondent has to be construed as under section
5(1) of the Act.”
7. In the present case, the management cannot
take advantage of the fact that it issued a yearly
appointment on a temporary basis initially. The
appointment was made after following the
requisite procedure for selection, namely, after
the issuance of an advertisement and holding of
interviews. The first respondent was a duly
qualified candidate. As already noted earlier, the
management itself treated the appointment as
one on probation. The services of the first
respondent were not discontinued within the
period of two years on the ground that they were
unsatisfactory. Upon the completion of two
years’ service, the first respondent became a
permanent employee as contemplated by the
provisions of section 5(2) of the Act.
23
wp-1637-2023
8. The second contention that has been urged is
that it was not the case of the management at all
that the services of the first respondent were
terminated and in fact, it was the first
respondent who had stopped attending the
duties after signing the Muster on 5th
September, 2007. The Maharashtra Employees
of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules,
1981 make a provision for such an eventuality.
Rule 16(3) provides as follows:
“16(3) In the case of a permanent employee
who, without sufficient cause, fails to apply for
leave within 7 days from the date of absence, it
shall be treated as breach of discipline and he
shall be liable for suitable disciplinary action
after due inquiry. A permanent employee who is
absent from duty without leave continuously for
a period exceeding three years or more, shall be
deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his
services.”
9. In the present case, it was the case of the
management that the first respondent had
without sufficient cause failed to apply for leave
and had remained absent. The management was
entitled to treat this as a breach of discipline and
to hold a disciplinary enquiry to establish the
allegation. Until the misconduct was proved, it
was only an allegation. Nothing of the kind was
done. The School Tribunal has reviewed the
material which has come on record in great deal
of detail and noted that it is only after the first
respondent filed a complaint against the
management that it prevented him, with effect
from 8th September, 2007, from signing the
Muster Roll. The grievance of the first
respondent is that the management was
resorting to unethical practices by making
extortionate demands. The Tribunal has for
cogent reasons entered a finding of fact that
there is substance in the grievance of the first
respondent.
24
wp-1637-2023
37. Thus, present case is squarely covered by the
observations made by this court as above.
38. After the matter was reserved for orders, Mr. Jadhavar –
learned advocate for the Petitioner tenders an affidavit to
claim back-wages. It is stated on oath that since the date of his
termination i.e. w.e.f. 15.06.2018 till 21.06.2023, the
Petitioner remained unemployed. Suffering starvation and
with sole object to run the livelihood of himself and the
family, he joined a job at one Avihas Electricals, a private
employer on a very meager amount of Rs. 12,000/- p.m.
which is now Rs. 14,000/- p.m. since January 2026. It is
submitted that, considering the illegality committed by the
management, his prayer for back-wages be accepted.
39. The law on backwages is clear. I am well guided by the
law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of
Education Society, Tumsar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
and ors., 2016 AIR(SC) 1700. In the light of the observations
on the disorderly and arbitrary conduct of the Management
and the ‘blind eyes’ policy adopted by the very responsible
authority i.e. the Deputy Director of Education, I deem it
necessary in the interest of justice to partly allow such prayer.
25
wp-1637-2023
40. Hence, I pass following order:
ORDER
I. The Writ Petition stands allowed;
II. Judgment and Order delivered by the
learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Pune
(Region Solapur) on 18.07.2022 in Appeal No.09
of 2019 and petitioner’s termination dated
15.06.2018 are quashed and set aside;
III. The Petitioner is held entitle for
reinstatement on the subject-matter post with
benefit of continuity for all service benefits; with
50% back wages from the date of termination i.e.
from 15.06.2018.
IV. The respondent management shall reinstate
the Petitioner on the subject-matter post within
Two weeks herefrom;
V. Within Eight weeks from passing of this
order, the respondent management shall pay 50%
of the back wages to the Petitioner.
VI. Rule made absolute in above terms.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…