Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vilas Jijabrao Chavan, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 08/07/1992 and given charge of Head Master in January 1993. His appointment was approved by the Education Officer w.e.f. 12/08/1994. In the academic year 1996-1997, the respondent educational institution received 100% grant-in-aid, and the petitioner was orally terminated on 17/09/1996. He was temporarily re-employed from 05/12/2001 to 06/04/2002. His appeal before the School Tribunal was dismissed on 30/03/2002, and the management terminated his service w.e.f. 06/04/2002. The petitioner had earlier filed an appeal which was allowed, but the management challenged it. By order dated 13/12/2001, the High Court allowed WP No.4829/2001 and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal, directing the management to deposit 20% of back wages as a precondition. The petitioner argued that he had worked for more than 3½ years and was a deemed permanent employee under Rule 28 of the MEPS Rules, 1981, and that oral termination is invalid. He relied on Progressive Education Society v. Rajendra, AIR 2008 SC 1442. The court noted that the petitioner did not comply with the precondition of depositing 20% back wages and failed to prove continuous service. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Oral Termination - MEPS Rules, 1981 - Rule 28 - Petitioner claimed oral termination on 17/09/1996 after working as Assistant Teacher and Head Master - Court held that oral termination is not recognized in law and must be set aside - However, petitioner failed to prove continuous service for 3½ years and did not comply with precondition of depositing 20% back wages - Petition dismissed (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and back wages despite not complying with the precondition of depositing 20% back wages as directed by the High Court, and whether the oral termination was valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner failed to comply with the precondition of depositing 20% back wages and did not prove continuous service.
Law Points
- Deemed permanent employee
- oral termination
- MEPS Rules 1981
- back wages
- precondition for remand
- School Tribunal
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 7
WRIT PETITION NO.1593 OF 2002
Mr.R.M.Deshmukh for petitioner, Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for respondent/State
Grushneshwar Shikshan Sanstha, The Head Master, The Education Officer (Secondary)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against termination.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought reinstatement and back wages.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was orally terminated from service on 17/09/1996 and later temporarily employed; his appeal was dismissed by the School Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the petitioner's appeal was allowed, but the management challenged it. By order dated 13/12/2001, the High Court allowed WP No.4829/2001 and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal, directing deposit of 20% back wages as precondition.
Issues
Whether the petitioner was a deemed permanent employee under Rule 28 of MEPS Rules, 1981?
Whether the oral termination was valid?
Whether the petitioner complied with the precondition of depositing 20% back wages?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he worked for more than 3½ years and is a deemed permanent employee; oral termination is invalid.
Petitioner relied on Progressive Education Society v. Rajendra, AIR 2008 SC 1442.
Ratio Decidendi
Oral termination is not recognized in law, but the petitioner failed to prove continuous service and did not comply with the precondition of depositing 20% back wages as directed by the High Court. Hence, the petition was dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and the order dated 30/03/2002 delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad by which Appeal No.319/1996, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.
An oral termination does not exist in the eyes of law and as such, the said termination deserves to be set aside.
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed on 08/07/1992, given charge of Head Master in January 1993, approval granted w.e.f. 12/08/1994. Orally terminated on 17/09/1996. Filed appeal before School Tribunal which was initially allowed but later remitted by High Court on 13/12/2001 with precondition of depositing 20% back wages. Tribunal dismissed appeal on 30/03/2002. Management terminated service w.e.f. 06/04/2002. Petitioner filed present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 28
