Bombay High Court
Naina Mukund Jadhav vs Kalyan Citizen'S Education Society An ... on 5 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:71
39-wp269-2010.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.269 OF 2010
Naina Mukund Jadhav ... Petitioner
V/s.
Kalyan Citizen's Education
Society & Ors. ... Respondents
ATUL Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate with
GANESH
KULKARNI Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire, and Mr. Aniket S. Phapale for
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
the petitioner.
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.05
17:42:12 +0530
Mr. Rahul Nerlekar with Ms. Amruta Nerlekar for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for respondent No.3-State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 5, 2026
P.C.:
1. This writ petition is filed by a teacher. He is aggrieved by the judgment of the School Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered his reinstatement. However, it did not grant continuity of service. The petitioner says this omission is illegal. According to him, once reinstatement was granted on the basis that his appointment was regular, continuity of service should have followed as a matter of course.
2. The petitioner had filed Appeal No.29 of 2008 before the School Tribunal. He challenged his termination dated 28 July 2008. The Tribunal examined the nature of his appointment. It applied Rule 9(9)(a) of the MEPS Rules. The Tribunal recorded a 1 ::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:46:35 ::: 39-wp269-2010.doc clear finding that the petitioner belongs to SC category and was appointed against a post reserved for ST category. Under Rule 9(9)
(a), such appointment could not be on year to year basis. It had to be a regular appointment. This finding is based on the rule itself and the category position on record.
3. On the basis of this finding, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the petitioner. However, while granting this relief, the Tribunal did not even consider the question of continuity of service. This omission is apparent from the judgment. Once the Tribunal held that the petitioner ought to have been appointed on a regular basis from the beginning, continuity of service was a direct consequence. Denial of continuity contradicts the very finding that the initial appointment was required to be regular.
4. The record shows that the petitioner was first appointed on 10 July 2003. This fact is not in dispute. If the appointment was required to be regular from that date, the petitioner's service could not have been treated as broken. In these circumstances, refusal to grant continuity of service is clearly erroneous and not supported by the findings recorded by the Tribunal itself.
5. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal requires modification. In addition to reinstatement, the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service. Such continuity shall operate from the date of his initial appointment, namely 10 July 2003.
6. Once continuity of service is granted, consequential benefits must follow. These include re-fixation of pay and other service benefits flowing from continuous service. The Deputy Director of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:46:35 ::: 39-wp269-2010.doc Education shall carry out this exercise within eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is produced.
7. As regards back wages, the petitioner had raised a grievance that the Tribunal refused to grant the same. On perusal of the appeal memo, it is clear that the petitioner did not plead that he was not gainfully employed during the period of termination. Such pleading is necessary to claim back wages. In the absence of this material, the Tribunal was justified in refusing back wages. To that extent, the judgment of the School Tribunal calls for no interference.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 3 ::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:46:35 :::