Teacher Terminated Four Times: Bombay HC Upholds Tribunal’s Order Setting Aside His Fourth Termination

Respondent No. 1 was appointed in 1995, and his appointment received education-authority approvals.

The Management terminated him four times; the School Tribunal set aside each termination, including the fourth termination dated 3 February 2020, by order dated 25 March 2021.

The Management challenged the Tribunal’s order, arguing, among other things, that the appeal notice had not been served, that the Tribunal had failed to decide preliminary issues, and that the appointment was affected by a caste-category and certificate dispute.

In an earlier proceeding concerning the first termination, the High Court had upheld the finding that Respondent No. 1 had acquired deemed confirmation.

Respondent No. 1 retired on 28 May 2023; the present petition was restored after dismissal for default.

Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 governs appointment and probation, and the earlier judgment applied it in finding that Respondent No. 1 had acquired deemed confirmation.

Under Section 9 of the Act, the School Tribunal hears appeals concerning employees’ grievances; Anna Manikrao Pethe v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, 1998 (4) Bom. C.R. 565, requires the Tribunal to frame and decide preliminary issues concerning the school’s recognition, the appointment’s compliance with Section 5 and the Rules, and the required approval.

A pending challenge to a caste validity certificate is not, without a decision invalidating it, proof that the certificate is false or that the employee’s appointment was obtained by fraud.

In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court considered whether the Tribunal’s order disclosed a basis for interference, including whether any omission caused prejudice requiring the order to be set aside.

The Management did not deny that notice was sent to its correct address and produced no material beyond the difference between the acknowledgement’s signature and the Secretary’s signature; that was insufficient to displace the Tribunal’s finding of service.

Nor did a general reference to Covid restrictions establish that the Management had been prevented from participating.

Although Anna Manikrao Pethe requires preliminary issues to be addressed, the appointment, approvals, reservation-category objection, and deemed confirmation had already been considered in earlier proceedings.

The Management showed no fresh material or prejudice warranting their reconsideration.

The pending caste-certificate challenge did not establish invalidity or justify the termination; that question was left to the court hearing the separate proceeding.

The employee’s retirement did not make the petition moot because the termination affected his service and retirement benefits.

It clarified that its judgment did not determine whether the caste validity certificate was false or invalid; that issue remained for the separate pending proceeding.

The Management was directed, within four weeks, to determine and release the service and retirement benefits admissible to Respondent No. 1, subject to the final decision in the caste-certificate proceedings and any adjustment permitted by law.

There was no order as to costs.