Bombay High Court
Savitribai Phule Shikshan Sanstha, ... vs Rohidas Sahebrao Sawale And Another on 17 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:11416
{1} WP 8648 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8648 OF 2014
1) Savitribai Phule Shikshan Sanstha,
Through its Secretary,
Onkar s/o Bhaurao Patil
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. : Undangaon, Tq.Sillod,
Dist.Aurangabad.
2) Savitribai Phule Primary School
Through it's Head Master,
Bharat s/o Sadashiv Mankar
Age : 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Undangaon, Tq.Sillod,
Dist.Aurangabad. ....Petitioners
(Ori. Resp. No.1 & 2)
Versus
1) Rohidas Sahebrao Sawale ..(Ori. Appellant)
Age: 30 years, Occu.: At present Nil,
R/o. Undangaon, Tq.Sillod,
Dist.Aurangabad.
2) Education Officer (Primary), ..(Ori. Resp. No.3)
Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad. .....Respondents
.....
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Milind M. Joshi
Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Mr. Sanjay Koilhare
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12 MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17 MARCH, 2026
{2} WP 8648 OF 2014
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioners, who are Secretary of an educational institution and Head Master of a School respectively, are taking exception to judgment and order dated 07-07-2014 passed by learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal bearing No.229 of 2001 at the instance of present respondent no.1, whose appeal against order of termination was allowed.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Petitioners issued advertisement in local newspaper dated 20-06-1997 calling application for the post of Assistant Teacher, more particularly, for persons belonging to SC, ST and NT categories. Three posts were shown to be vacant for each of the category. Education qualification prescribed for said posts were S.S.C./H.S.C. D.Ed. Present respondent no.1, who belongs to Other Backward Classes category (OBC) also applied and was also called for interview and finally, he was selected and asked to join the institution namely Savitribai Phule Primary School, Undangaon, Tq.Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad. He worked there from 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 by giving technical breaks. On 10-07-2000, his services {3} WP 8648 OF 2014 were considered and converted as "Shikshan Sevak" and thereby nomenclature of post was changed from Assistant Teacher to "Shikshan Sevak". On 31-01-2001, his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 30-04-2001 assigning reason that his appointment was on the backlog and it was for temporary period i.e. till 30-04-2001 and hence, his services were brought to an end.
Therefore, he challenged the above termination before forum of School Tribunal, Aurangabad vide Appeal No.229 of 2001, which came to be allowed by order dated 07-07-2014.
Feeling aggrieved by the above order of School Tribunal, original respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. Secretary, Savitribai Phule Shikshan Sanstha and Head Master, Savitribai Phule Primary School respectively, have come up before this Court by way of instant writ petition challenging the order of School Tribunal on various grounds spelt out in the writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS On behalf of appellant :
3. Shri Milind Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that, there is no dispute that respondent no.1 was selected and even appointed as Assistant Teacher, however, it is his case that {4} WP 8648 OF 2014 when respondent no.1 applied, at that time, there were three posts only meant for SC, ST and NT and it was clearly stated in the advertisement. Therefore, as respondent no.1 do not belongs to either of these categories, though he was found suitable and selected in the interview, he was not appointed on a clear vacant post. That, there is also no dispute that services of the respondent no.1 were temporary and so were duly extended every year from 1997 to 2000 as the post was against other reserved categories, to which respondent no.1 never belongs to and therefore, his appointment was only to fill the backlog.
4. His next contention is that, even otherwise, though respondent no.1 was terminated from the post of Assistant Teacher, he was observed as "Shikshan Sevak" by virtue of scheme floated in 2000 and therefore, his appointment from period 2000-2001 was with designation and nomenclature of "Shikshan Sevak" and not as was earlier done. He pointed out that, it was requirement of above scheme that employee has to tender Hamipatra, but respondent no.1 did not meet this requirement and even this is conveyed by the Education Department, who had refused to grant approval. According to him, for such action of Education Department, {5} WP 8648 OF 2014 petitioner institution cannot be blamed.
5. It is his further contention that once respondent no.1 himself has accepted the appointment as "Shikshan Sevak" for the year 2000- 2001, he has automatically forfeited all claims over previous appointment and as such, he cannot now revert back and claim permanency on the strength of earlier appointment.
6. Lastly, he submitted that learned School Tribunal had failed to comprehend and appreciate the exact position and has misconstrued the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (MEPS Act), more particularly Rule 9 (9) of the said Act and has erred in allowing the appeal and hence, he prays to set aside the same.
On behalf of respondent no.1 :
7. Per contra learned counsel for respondent no.1 would staunchly defend and support the order of learned School Tribunal. According to him, though in the advertisement, posts were reserved SC, ST and NT, but admittedly applicant was selected after facing interview and he was given appointment for the year from 1997- 1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-2000 and thereby he had completed {6} WP 8648 OF 2014 continuous three years services on a clear vacant post. According to him, by virtue of Section 9(9) of the MEPS Act, though respondent belongs to OBC category, in absence of eligible candidates from other categories like SC, ST and NT, he was rightly given opportunity. That, infact in view of said provisions, petitioners institution was expected to keep him on probation and ought to have made him permanent after two years of probation, but petitioners failed and therefore, learned tribunal by taking said provision into account as well as several judgments of this Court as well as of Hon'ble Supreme Court, has rightly allowed his appeal. That, the judgment is perfectly legal, valid and reasoned and same need not be disturbed.
8. After considering the above submissions, here, Secretary and Head Master of an educational institution, who are petitioners, seem to be aggrieved by order passed by School Tribunal in favour of present respondent no.1 setting aside his termination order dated 31-03-2001 and directing him to be reinstated and to pay all consequential benefits since date of termination till reinstatement.
9. The fundamental grounds for the challenge in the petition by petitioners is that respondent no.1 was appointed to fill backlog that too on a temporary basis on post meant exclusively reserved for SC, {7} WP 8648 OF 2014 ST and NT categories. Therefore, his appointment was not on a clear vacant post. Secondly, respondent no.1 having readily accepted the appointment of Shikshan Sevak Scheme from 2001 onwards, he has automatically forfeited claims and benefits attached to the earlier post of Assistant Teacher and as such, stood disentitled from claiming permanency. Judgment of School Tribunal is criticized on the ground that said forum failed to consider and appreciate the case put-forth by them in appeal as well as failed to consider the Say given by Education Officer and thereby erred in allowing the appeal of present respondent no.1
10. After having comprehended the controversy, it is emerging that present respondent no.1, in response to an advertisement by present petitioners dated 20-6-1997, applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. There is no doubt that in the said advertisement. three posts are earmarked for SC, ST and NT respectively. However, in the advertisement itself it is further clarified that in case candidates from said categories for which three posts are earmarked are not available, then preference would be given to the candidates from other categories. Admittedly, respondent no.1 did not belongs to any of the categories spelt out in the advertisement and he by virtue of his {8} WP 8648 OF 2014 category from OBC, in absence of availability of candidates from SC, ST and NT, obviously assumed priority in appointment. He was infact interviewed and selected and given appointment order to join petitioner's school at Undangaon, Tq.Sillod and where he undisputedly served for academic years 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 i.e. apparently for three years. It is not a case that after initial appointment for one year, fresh advertisement was flashed in 1998-1999, rather respondent no.1 is allowed to serve for a further period up to 2000.
11. The primary contention of respondent no.1 before the learned school tribunal as well as before this Court is that by virtue of continuous service for above period, the petitioners ought to have placed him initially on probation for two years and ought to have made him permanent. Indeed, it is noticed that there were three vacancies when advertisement was flashed. After finding respondent no.1 fit upon interview, he was selected and directed to join. Even for above period, Education Department has accorded approval and there is no denial of the same. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, when abruptly without giving opportunity of hearing he was served with termination order, he was justified in approaching to {9} WP 8648 OF 2014 School Tribunal, which is an appropriate forum to deal with his grievance and even learned School Tribunal has rightly entertained appeal.
12. It appears that learned tribunal has, apart from taking into account the service period from 1997 upto 2000, has fallen back on the provisions of Section 9(9)(a) of the MEPS Act and for the ready reference it is reproduced as under :
"(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 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 filled in temporarily on an year to year basis by a candidate not belonging to the Backward Classes."
13. In the light of above provisions, it is clear that when a post earmarked for a particular category is not filled, the said post can be filled by a candidate belonging to other reserved category. Here, respondent no.1 was admittedly belonging to other backward classes and as no suitable candidate was found at the time of his interview from the category of SC, ST and NT, in the light of above provisions, he was rightly accommodated. As stated above, after the {10} WP 8648 OF 2014 advertisement in question, no fresh advertisement has been issued and rather services of respondent no.1 are continued for over three years.
14. In the light of the several rulings relied by respondent no.1 before Tribunal i.e. the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Shakuntala Shirbate v. Industrial Weaving Co-Operative Housing Society and others, 1994 AIR SC 36; and Judgments of this Court in cases of Lalitha Thutpi v. C.B.Karkhanis 1998 (1) Mah LR 235; President, Mahila Mandal, Sinnar and Others v. Sunita Bansidhar Patole, 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 105; Bhartiya Buddha Dhamma Dnyan Vidyalaya and Another V. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and Others, 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 177, and more particularly, in the light of Circular issued in 1979, the learned School Tribunal does not seem to have committed any error in allowing the appeal and granting relief prayed by respondent no.1.
15. Mere submissions are made that impugned order is erroneous and perverse and is contrary to spirit of provisions of the MEPS Act without demonstrating how learned School Tribunal has misconstrued and misapplied the provisions and has erroneously considered the law/citations relied by respondent no.1. On the {11} WP 8648 OF 2014 contrary, the provisions of the MEPS Act are rightly considered and applied. There being no reason to interfere, writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, following order is passed :
ORDER Writ Petition stands dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT