High Court Allows Writ Petition, Orders Reinstatement with Back Wages for Assistant Teacher in Illegal Termination Case Under MEPS Act. School Tribunal's Compensation Award Quashed as Management Fails to Prove Post Abolition

Sub Category: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY

Admin

2026-02-16 12:04:30

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by Petitioner against the judgment of the School Tribunal, Pune, which had declared her termination illegal but denied reinstatement, awarding only compensation. The Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher with over nine years of continuous service, was terminated in 2019 based on alleged post abolition. The Court found the termination illegal under the MEPS Act and MEPS Rules, emphasizing that reinstatement with back wages is the standard relief for illegal termination. It rejected the Tribunal's denial of reinstatement on speculative grounds and the Management's argument about temporary appointment, noting continuous service and statutory duties established permanent status. The impugned judgment was quashed, and the Management was directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages within eight weeks.

Headnote

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, heard a Writ Petition challenging the judgment dated 01.02.2022 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune -- The Tribunal had partially allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against her termination dated 06.03.2019, declaring it illegal but denying reinstatement and awarding only six months' salary as compensation -- The Petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2011, rendered uninterrupted service for over nine years until her termination in 2019 -- The Court held that the termination was illegal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules) -- Reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages was ordered as the necessary consequence, quashing the Tribunal's compensation award -- The Management's plea of post abolition was rejected due to lack of approval from the Education Officer

Premium Content

The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access key legal points

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the School Tribunal erred in denying reinstatement and granting only compensation after declaring the termination illegal under the MEPS Act

Premium Content

The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case issues

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal, and directed the Management to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages within eight weeks

2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 6

Writ Petition No. 3076 of 2022

2026-02-03

Milind N. Jadhav J.

2026:BHC-AS:5405

Mr. Vivek M. Punjabi, Mr. Priyansh R. Jain for Petitioner, Mr. Shubham Misar for Respondent Nos.1 to 10, Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.11 and 12

Namrata Ramchandra Zagade

Shri. Gujrati Shikshan Pracharak Mandal, Pune & Ors.

Premium Content

The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case indexes

Nature of Litigation: Writ Petition challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal, Pune regarding illegal termination of an Assistant Teacher

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks quashing of the Tribunal's judgment and reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages

Filing Reason

Termination declared illegal by Tribunal but reinstatement denied, only compensation awarded

Previous Decisions

School Tribunal partially allowed Appeal, declared termination illegal, directed payment of six months' salary as compensation in lieu of reinstatement

Issues

Whether the School Tribunal erred in denying reinstatement after declaring the termination illegal under the MEPS Act Whether the Management could unilaterally abolish the teaching post without approval from the Education Officer

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's Advocate argued that denial of reinstatement was erroneous as illegal termination mandates reinstatement with continuity of service Petitioner's Advocate submitted that continuous service for over nine years established permanent status, making termination without inquiry illegal Respondent's Advocate contended that the appointment was not in consonance with Section 5 of MEPS Act, thus no right to reinstatement

Ratio Decidendi

Illegal termination under the MEPS Act necessitates reinstatement with back wages as the primary relief, and the Management cannot avoid this by alleging procedural lapses or speculative future disputes

Judgment Excerpts

Held that the termination was illegal under the MEPS Act and MEPS Rules Held that reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal consequence for illegal termination Held that the Management's plea of post abolition was invalid without approval from the Education Officer

Procedural History

Petitioner appointed in 2011, terminated in 2019, approached Education Officer, filed Appeal before School Tribunal in 2020, Tribunal passed judgment in 2022, Petitioner filed Writ Petition in 2022, High Court heard and decided in 2026