Bombay HC Upholds Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Teacher Fired as Untrained Without a Chance to Complete Recognised D.Ed.

Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a teacher and later as Headmistress.

She held a D.Ed. qualification from a private institute; the Management disclosed this in the proposal for age relaxation, which the Education Officer granted.

In 1997, the State issued a circular providing for the continuation of certain untrained teachers and time to complete the required training. The Management nevertheless terminated Respondent No. 1 in February 1998 on the ground that she was untrained.

The School Tribunal allowed her appeal, set aside the termination, and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The Management challenged that decision by writ petition.

Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, provides a remedy of appeal to the School Tribunal against specified employment decisions.

The State circular dated 5 November 1997 provided for continuation of the covered untrained teachers and an opportunity to complete the necessary training; termination could follow where a teacher failed to complete that training despite being given the opportunity.

The Government Resolution dated 2 June 2000 similarly provided for protection and regularisation of covered teachers, subject to its terms and an opportunity to complete the required training.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in St. Ulai High School v. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh, the Court reiterated that Education Officer approval is not a condition precedent to a valid appointment.

In exercising writ jurisdiction, the Court found no basis to interfere where the Tribunal’s view was not perverse and was a probable view.

The Management knew of Respondent No. 1’s private-institute D.Ed. qualification when it appointed her as Headmistress and sought age relaxation; that qualification was disclosed to and considered by the Education Department.

The stated reason for termination was her untrained status, but the 1997 circular and 2000 Government Resolution required that she first be given an opportunity to complete the necessary training.

The Management’s letter seeking permission to continue her service did not itself amount to giving her that opportunity, and its subsequent reliance on the Education Authority’s view that she was ineligible did not displace the protections under those instruments.

The Court therefore held that her failure to complete D.Ed. during the later proceedings did not cure the Management’s failure to provide the required opportunity before termination.

It found no perversity in the Tribunal’s decision.

It found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the writ petition, discharged the Rule, and made no order as to costs.