Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad set aside the order of the School Tribunal, Nashik, and quashed the termination of a Shikshan Sevak whose services had been discontinued on the ground of non-grant of approval by the Education Officer. The Court held that termination of services cannot be sustained merely because approval was not granted. The management was directed to reinstate the petitioner and submit a fresh proposal for approval, which the Education Officer must decide within eight weeks, without rejecting it on earlier grounds.
Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in October 2012 after undergoing a due selection process conducted by the management of a school. The vacancy had arisen upon the retirement of a teacher, and the management had sought permission from the Education Officer to fill the post. However, the Education Officer did not respond. Faced with this silence, the management issued a newspaper advertisement, held the selection process, and appointed the petitioner, who joined service on 15 October 2012.
The petitioner completed three years of probation by October 2015 and thus acquired the status of a permanent teacher. Despite this, the management delayed forwarding the proposal for approval of her appointment until 2016. At that point, the Education Officer rejected the proposal on grounds that (i) the approval request was belated, (ii) surplus teachers were to be absorbed first, and (iii) roster compliance was questionable. Based on this rejection, the management terminated the petitioner’s services on 12 September 2016.
The petitioner appealed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, but the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that she failed to prove that her appointment followed due procedure. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Issues
The primary issue before the Court was:
Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services could be sustained solely on the ground that the Education Officer had not granted approval to her appointment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that her appointment was lawful, as the management had followed the due process by issuing an advertisement, conducting a selection process, and appointing her on merit. She contended that non-grant of approval is an administrative matter between the Education Officer and the management, and it cannot form a legal basis for termination of service.
It was further argued that the grounds for termination enumerated in Section 5(3) of the 1977 Act did not cover refusal of approval. The Tribunal erred by failing to appreciate that refusal of approval affects only salary disbursement and not the legality of appointment.
To reinforce this, reliance was placed on Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale v. Chairman, Kai Ramchandra Patil Shikshan Sanstha (2016 (3) All MR 828) and Shri Hiraji Natthurao Bangare v. Dyan Prasarak Shikshan Mandal (2019 (3) All MR 47), where it was held that termination cannot be sustained merely because approval was refused.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Education Officer submitted that the petitioner’s appointment was irregular, as surplus teachers were to be absorbed before fresh recruitment. Further, it was claimed that the post in question was not available for the NT category under the roster, making the petitioner’s appointment contrary to the rules. The respondents argued that the School Tribunal had rightly dismissed the appeal, and the termination order was valid.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 5 of the 1977 Act, which governs appointment and approval of teachers in private schools. The Court noted that non-grant of approval cannot be equated with illegality in appointment. Approval is primarily required for the release of salary from the State, and not as a precondition for the validity of the appointment itself.
The Court emphasised that the Education Officer’s refusal to grant approval was belated and not based on substantive grounds at the time of appointment. Moreover, the Officer had never expressly denied permission when sought by the management in 2012. Thus, rejection in 2016 could not retrospectively invalidate a lawful appointment
Precedent Analysis
- Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale (2016 (3) All MR 828): The Court had held that termination solely for want of approval is unsustainable, as the Act of 1977 contains no such provision. Approval is only for disbursal of salary. The reasoning directly applied here, strengthening the petitioner’s case.
- Shri Hiraji Natthurao Bangare (2019 (3) All MR 47): The Court observed that rejection of approval does not by itself justify termination. In that case, the petitioner was treated as in continuous service despite rejection of approval, with the management held responsible for salary. The principle reinforced the proposition that approval status cannot be the sole ground for dismissal
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Education Officer had never responded to the management’s request for permission to fill the vacancy in 2012. The refusal came only in 2016, long after the petitioner had been lawfully appointed and completed probation. Raising fresh grounds such as roster irregularity or surplus absorption for the first time in reply before the Tribunal was impermissible.
The Court reiterated that there is “no provision in the Act of 1977 for termination of services of a teacher on the ground that approval is not granted by the Education Officer.” Hence, both the Tribunal’s order and the termination were unsustainable in law.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed the termination order of 12 September 2016 and set aside the Tribunal’s judgment of 14 January 2022. The management was directed to reinstate the petitioner and submit a fresh proposal for approval. The Education Officer was ordered to decide the proposal within eight weeks of submission and was restrained from rejecting it on earlier grounds. The writ petition was thus allowed.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that teachers cannot be made to suffer termination solely because of bureaucratic delays or refusal of approval by the Education Officer. Approval is an administrative requirement for salary, not a determinant of the validity of appointment. The judgment safeguards teachers from arbitrary dismissals and places responsibility on management and authorities to act promptly and lawfully. It also clarifies that non-grant of approval cannot override the statutory protections under the 1977 Act.
FAQs
Q1. Can a teacher’s services be terminated if the Education Officer refuses approval?
No. The Bombay High Court has reiterated that refusal of approval by the Education Officer cannot be the sole ground for termination. Approval is required only for salary disbursal and not for the validity of the appointment itself.
Q2. What did the Court direct the management to do after quashing termination?
The management was directed to reinstate the teacher and resubmit a proposal for approval to the Education Officer, who must decide within eight weeks without relying on previous grounds of rejection.
Q3. How does this judgment affect other teachers facing similar issues?
This judgment serves as precedent, affirming that teachers cannot be dismissed merely due to non-approval. It provides protection to many similarly situated employees, ensuring that management and authorities cannot bypass statutory safeguards.