A Shikshan Sevak’s termination is illegal without vacancy proof or objective Rule 15(6) assessment.

The petitioner worked in Seth G.H. High School from 18 January 2005, allegedly through artificial breaks in service.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 22 December 2010, she participated in a regular selection process and was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on 10 January 2011 against a vacancy arising from the retirement of a teacher on 3 June 2010.

The Management did not forward her appointment proposal for approval, and the Education Inspector declined approval on 21 January 2012.

On 31 August 2012, the Headmistress orally directed her not to report for duty from 1 September 2012, without issuing a written termination order or stating reasons.

The petitioner’s representations and subsequent intervention by the Education Inspector did not secure her reinstatement.

The Education Inspector noted that, contrary to the Management’s stand, official records disclosed an available vacancy, and the Deputy Director directed an inquiry into the termination.

The petitioner’s appeal before the School Tribunal was partly allowed, but reinstatement was denied.

After remand by the High Court, the Tribunal again declined reinstatement by judgment dated 12 January 2016, leading to the present writ petition.

Whether the petitioner, as a Shikshan Sevak, was entitled to statutory protection and a remedy against discontinuance of service under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”).

Whether the Management’s discontinuance of the petitioner on the alleged ground of non-availability of a vacancy was lawful when the Education Inspector’s records indicated that a sanctioned vacancy was available.

Whether termination of a probationary Shikshan Sevak required an objective assessment under Rule 15(6) of the MEPS Rules, even where a formal disciplinary inquiry was not necessary.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement, continuity of service, consequential benefits, and back wages.

The Court applied the MEPS Act, 1977, particularly the statutory definition of “Shikshan Sevak” under Section 2(24A), which treats a Shikshan Sevak as a member of the base teaching cadre appointed on honorarium for eventual appointment as a teacher, and the provisions extending the status of “employee” and the appellate remedy under Section 9.

Section 5(3) and Rule 15(6) govern the position of employees appointed on probation.

Relying on Principal, Our Lady of Salvation High School v. Rashmi Upadhyay, (2009) 3 Bom CR 401, the Court held that the Shikshan Sevak Scheme had acquired a statutory character and that Shikshan Sevaks were entitled to protection and a remedy under the MEPS Act.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in Gramin Yuvak Vikas Shikshan Mandal Kinhi Naik, (2023) 4 Mah LJ 323, the Court held that a probationer has no indefeasible right to continue until confirmation, and that termination for unsatisfactory work or conduct ordinarily does not require a disciplinary inquiry; however, an objective assessment of performance under Rule 15(6) remains mandatory.

Illegal termination does not automatically result in back wages, particularly where the employee has not pleaded and sworn that she remained unemployed.

The Court rejected both extreme positions advanced by the parties.

The petitioner’s near-completion of three years did not give her an indefeasible right to confirmation, but her status as a Shikshan Sevak did not leave her without statutory protection or a remedy.

The Management did not justify the discontinuance on the basis of unsatisfactory performance and produced no record demonstrating the objective assessment required by Rule 15(6).

Instead, it relied on the alleged absence of a vacancy.

That explanation was contradicted by the Education Inspector’s communication recording the existence of a sanctioned vacant post and by the direction to inquire into the circumstances of the petitioner’s termination.

Since the stated reason for termination was unsupported and the mandatory performance-assessment requirement was also not shown to have been followed, the Tribunal failed to examine material aspects of the case and its judgment could not stand.

The Court therefore granted continuity and consequential service benefits but denied back wages because the petitioner had not pleaded or stated on oath that she was not gainfully employed during the intervening period.

The petitioner’s termination with effect from 1 September 2012 was declared illegal.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to reinstate her as a Shikshan Sevak/Assistant Teacher, as permissible in law, within eight weeks, with continuity of service for seniority, pensionary and other consequential benefits.

The Management was directed to submit the necessary approval proposal within four weeks of reinstatement, and the competent Education Authority was directed to decide it expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks of receipt.

Back wages were denied, and there was no order as to costs.