Bombay High Court
Bomble Bharat Ghamaji vs Samta Pratishtan And Ors. on 11 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:11904
15-wp-3814-2010.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3814 OF 2010
SHABNOOR Bomble Bharat Ghamaji ... Petitioner
AYUB V/s.
PATHAN
Samta Pratishtan & Ors. ... Respondents
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2026.03.11
15:32:43 +0530
Mr. Eknath R. Dhokale, a/w Darshna S. Kamble, for the
Petitioner.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 11, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present petition arises from an appeal which was filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, commonly referred to as the MEPS Act. The case of the petitioner, as placed before the Tribunal and reiterated before this Court, is that he had initially been appointed in another school on probation. According to him, that school was later closed down and thereafter he came to be engaged by the present respondent management. It is his submission that after joining the respondent institution he continued to work for several years. He claims that the post on which he worked was in fact a permanent post and that the workload available in the school was sufficient to justify the existence of such a permanent vacancy.
1 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:09:59 :::15-wp-3814-2010.doc
2. The petitioner asserts that he discharged duties as an Assistant Teacher for a considerable period of time and that his service was continuous in nature. According to him, he worked for more than three years and therefore he acquired a right to be treated as a permanent employee under the provisions of the MEPS Act. It is his grievance that although he had completed the necessary period of service, the management did not grant him permanency. Instead, he was repeatedly shown in the service record as a temporary or part time employee. The petitioner contends that this description in the records was done deliberately by the management so as to deprive him of the legal protection available to permanent teachers.
3. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that he continued to work with the respondent management until the year 2009. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention to certain documents placed on record. These documents, according to him, show that there existed a permanent post in the school and that the workload was adequate to sustain such post. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was deputed for training programmes and other official activities which, according to the petitioner, would ordinarily be entrusted only to regular teaching staff. On this basis it is argued that the petitioner had in fact functioned as a regular Assistant Teacher for nearly eight years. Therefore, the petitioner submits that the absence of a formal written appointment order should not be treated as fatal to his claim. According to him, when the nature of work, the length of service, and the surrounding material clearly indicate that he 2 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:09:59 ::: 15-wp-3814-2010.doc worked against a permanent vacancy, the benefit of Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act ought to have been extended to him. It is therefore urged that the School Tribunal ought to have appreciated this material in its proper perspective and should have granted the relief of permanency to the petitioner.
4. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal and also examined the material which was placed before it. The Tribunal has considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents produced on record. While doing so, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that in the appeal filed before it, the petitioner himself had pleaded that he was appointed as a part time Assistant Teacher. This aspect has weighed with the Tribunal while deciding the matter.
5. After considering the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal, I do not find any ground which would justify interference with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The claim of the petitioner for permanency essentially rests on the contention that he had worked for a sufficient period against a permanent post. However, in matters arising under the MEPS Act, the existence of a valid appointment and the nature of that appointment assume considerable importance. In the present case, the petitioner has not produced any appointment order which would show that he was appointed on probation to a permanent post. In the absence of such material, the petitioner was required to establish by clear evidence that his appointment was of a probationary nature and that he had continued to work on a permanent post for a period exceeding two years. Only upon satisfying these requirements 3 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:09:59 ::: 15-wp-3814-2010.doc could a claim under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act be sustained. The Tribunal has examined the available material and has found that these basic requirements were not fulfilled in the present case.
6. The legal position on this aspect has already been clarified by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkrishna Chauhan v. Seth D. M. High School and others decided on 12 March 2013. The Full Bench has examined the scheme of the MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It has been clearly held that an appointment order forms the basic contract between the management and the employee. Such an order indicates the nature of appointment, the post against which the employee is engaged, and the terms governing the service. The Full Bench has further observed that in the absence of proof that the employee was appointed on probation to a permanent post and that he continued in such post for the required period, a claim for automatic confirmation cannot be accepted.
7. Applying the principles laid down in the said judgment to the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that the petitioner's claim cannot be accepted. The petitioner himself has stated that he was appointed as a part time teacher. Once such a stand is taken, it becomes difficult to hold that he was appointed on probation to a permanent post. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been produced to show that his appointment was made against a sanctioned permanent vacancy. In the absence of these essential elements, the statutory benefit under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act cannot be extended to the petitioner. The Tribunal has therefore taken a view which is consistent with the law declared by the Full 4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:09:59 ::: 15-wp-3814-2010.doc Bench of this Court.
8. For these reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is in consonance with the legal position governing appointments under the MEPS Act. Consequently, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction.
9. The writ petition is therefore disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 5 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:09:59 :::