High Court Dismisses Teacher's Writ Petition Challenging School Tribunal Order on Graduate Pay Scale Entitlement -- Maintainability Under MEPS Act and Finality of Earlier Judicial Order Upheld

Nature of Litigation: Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the School Tribunal's judgment and order

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought quashing of the School Tribunal's order and direction for grant of graduate pay scale with consequential benefits

Filing Reason

The petitioner claimed entitlement to graduate pay scale based on seniority and acquisition of B.A. degree in 1991, while respondent No. 5, junior in seniority, had obtained graduate pay scale through earlier writ proceedings

Previous Decisions

School Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. 106 of 2003 on 20 November 2007 -- Earlier Writ Petition No. 3824 of 1999 filed by respondent No. 5 was allowed by the High Court, granting her graduate pay scale from January 1996

Issues

Whether the appeal before the School Tribunal was maintainable under Section 9 of the MEPS Act when the grievance related solely to pay scale entitlement without allegations of supersession? Whether the petitioner could indirectly challenge the earlier writ order that had granted graduate pay scale to respondent No. 5 and attained finality?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's submission: Teachers acquiring higher qualifications during service become entitled to graduate pay scale per government policy -- Petitioner, being senior and qualified since 1991, had legal entitlement to graduate pay scale -- Reliance on Kondiba Dagdu Mirashe v. State of Maharashtra and State of Maharashtra v. Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhary Respondent's submission: Appeal not maintainable under Section 9 of MEPS Act as claim relates solely to pay scale without supersession -- Earlier writ order granting graduate pay scale to respondent No. 5 had attained finality and could not be indirectly challenged

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 provides remedies only for termination, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, or supersession -- Claims relating solely to pay scales without allegations of supersession do not fall within the ambit of Section 9 -- The MEPS Act is a self-contained legislative framework, and rights must be traced to the statutory text -- Judicial orders that have attained finality between parties cannot be indirectly challenged in subsequent proceedings

Judgment Excerpts

The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act constitutes a self contained legislative framework governing the field of employment in private educational institutions -- The Act is not a skeletal enactment that requires supplementation from general service jurisprudence except where the statute itself so provides Courts are not at liberty to travel beyond the text of the statute The appeal before the Tribunal was not maintainable in law as the petitioner had expressly confined her grievance to the question of pay scale and had not alleged supersession

Procedural History

13 June 1986: Petitioner appointed as teacher with S.S.C. and D.Ed. qualifications -- April 1991: Petitioner acquired B.A. degree -- 21 November 1994: Respondent No. 5 appointed with B.A. and B.Ed. qualifications -- 12 January 1999: Respondent No. 5 filed Writ Petition No. 3824 of 1999 -- High Court allowed writ petition, granting respondent No. 5 graduate pay scale from January 1996 -- 31 October 2003: Petitioner filed Appeal No. 106 of 2003 before School Tribunal -- 20 November 2007: School Tribunal dismissed the appeal -- 2008: Petitioner filed present Writ Petition No. 2419 of 2008 -- 29 January 2026: Reserved for judgment -- 6 February 2026: Judgment pronounced