[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shri. Sunil Madhukar Kamble vs The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal ... on 1 April, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:15332
WP.11769.2022.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11769 OF 2022
Sunil Madhukar Kamble .. Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Laxman Kalel, Advocate i/by Mr. Deepak Sathe for Petitioner.
Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 - State.
Mr. M.T. Pise, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : APRIL 01, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kalel, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.
Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 - State
and Mr. Pise, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. Present Petition impugns the judgment and order dated
15.02.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Pune whereby Appeal No.55 of 2019 filed by Petitioner came to be
rejected.
3. Briefly stated, the present dispute pertains to alleged illegal
and oral termination of Petitioner from the post of Assistant Teacher by
Respondent No.3 - Management on 17.11.2019. Petitioner states that
he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the School run by
Respondent No.3 and rendered continuous and uninterrupted service
1 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
from 01.06.2002 till date of his alleged termination on 17.11.2019.
Petitioner is duly qualified, holding degrees of Bachelor of Arts and
Bachelor of Education (B.A., B.Ed.) and belongs to Scheduled Caste
category.
3.1. According to Petitioner, his appointment was made pursuant
to an advertisement published in the daily newspaper 'Lokmat' and
Petitioner was appointed on a clear and vacant post by issuing
appointment order dated 01.06.2002. It is case of Petitioner that after
appointment, Petitioner joined service and continuously worked as
Assistant Teacher without any break for 17 years.
3.2. Petitioner contends that he satisfactorily completed the
probation period and thereby acquired status of permanent employee
in the service of Respondent - Management. Petitioner asserts that
during the course of his employment, he discharged duties not only in
Primary Section but also in the Secondary Section of the School and
participated in various academic activities including evaluation of
examination papers and training programs conducted by Educational
Authorities.
3.3. Petitioner relies upon various documents such as his
appointment order, experience certificates issued by the Head Master,
attendance letters issued by the Block Education Officer and
certificates issued by the Deputy Director of Education to establish his
2 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
continuous service with Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Petitioner contends
that State Government issued Government Resolution dated
08.03.2019 granting 20% grant-in-aid to Ashram Schools including the
School run by Respondent No.3 and Petitioner is therefore eligible for
the said benefit.
3.4. It is case of Petitioner that despite rendering long and
continuous service, services of Petitioner were terminated orally on
17.11.2019 without issuing any notice, conducting any enquiry and
without following due process of law.
3.5. Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred Appeal No.55 of 2019
before the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune on
03.12.2019 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "MEPS
Act").
3.6. Petitioner contends that though relevant documents were
placed on record, learned Presiding Officer failed to properly
appreciate the same and erroneously held that the Primary Ashram
School is not covered under the provisions of the MEPS Act.
3.7. Learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune by
judgment dated 15.02.2022 rejected the Appeal on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction holding that the provisions of MEPS Act are not
applicable to Primary Ashram Schools.
3 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
4. Mr. Kalel, learned Advocate for Petitioner would submit that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, School Tribunal, Pune is wholly erroneous, illegal and
unsustainable in law.
4.1. He would submit that the learned Presiding Officer has failed
to properly appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record,
particularly the appointment order which clearly indicates that
Petitioner was appointed on a clear and vacant post and not on
temporary basis.
4.2. He would submit that the findings recorded by the Tribunal
that Petitioner was working only in Primary Ashram School is contrary
to the material on record, inasmuch as Petitioner has placed sufficient
documents to demonstrate that he had discharged duties in Secondary
Section of the School.
4.3. He would submit that Petitioner rendered long and
continuous service of about 17 years and therefore the action of
Respondent - Management in terminating his services orally without
following the due process of law is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of
the provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder.
4.4. He would submit that the learned Presiding Officer has erred
in holding that the provisions of the MEPS Act are not applicable,
without considering that the School run by Respondent No.3 consists
4 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
of both Primary and Secondary Sections functioning in the same
campus. He would submit that the impugned judgment proceeds on
erroneous assumption that Petitioner has failed to establish his service
in Secondary School whereas the material on record clearly indicates
otherwise.
4.5. He would submit that Respondent - Management having
continued Petitioner in service for a long period cannot now be
permitted to deny status of permanency to Petitioner or dispute the
nature of his appointment. He would submit that findings recorded by
the learned Presiding Officer suffer from non-application of mind
inasmuch as relevant documents produced by Petitioner have not been
considered in their proper perspective.
4.6. He would submit that once it is established that termination
of Petitioner is illegal, Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages and denial of the same defeats
the very object of the beneficial legislation.
4.7. Lastly, he would submit that the impugned judgment is
based on misreading of evidence and incorrect interpretation of law
and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. PER CONTRA, Mr. Pise, learned Advocate for Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 - Management would submit that the present Writ Petition
is wholly misconceived, untenable in law and liable to be dismissed at
5 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
the threshold. He would submit that Petitioner was never appointed on
a clear, vacant and permanent post in accordance with the mandatory
provisions of Section 5 of the MEPS Act as alleged by him and
therefore no enforceable legal right accrues in favour of Petitioner.
5.1. He would submit that it is a settled position of law that an
appointment made dehors the statutory provisions does not confer any
right of continuation or protection and such an employee cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
5.2. He would submit that Petitioner was initially appointed as a
Sports Teacher in the Primary Ashram School on purely temporary
basis for a fixed tenure from 01.06.2002 to 30.04.2003 and thereafter
again from 05.06.2003 to 30.04.2004 and the said appointments were
conditional and subject to grant of sanction by the Competent
Authority. He would submit that in absence of recognition and
sanction at the relevant time, the appointment of Petitioner was purely
stop-gap and contractual in nature and automatically came to an end
by efflux of time.
5.3. He would submit that upon expiry of his tenure on
30.04.2004, services of Petitioner stood discontinued and therefore the
question of termination in violation of principles of natural justice or
statutory provisions does not arise. He would submit that Petitioner
6 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
has falsely and deliberately claimed that he continued in service till
17.11.2019 without producing any evidence of his appointment order,
continuation order or salary record to substantiate such purported
claim.
5.4. He would submit that case of Petitioner is based on
misleading pleadings and suppression of material facts and therefore
the Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of lack of
bonafides. He would submit that Petitioner was at all times appointed
only in the Primary Ashram School and never in the Secondary School
and the attempt to project otherwise is a complete afterthought to
bring his case within the ambit of the MEPS Act.
5.5. He would submit that the documents relied upon by
Petitioner, particularly the alleged experience certificate dated
08.06.2009 are fabricated, bogus and have not been issued by any
Competent Authority. He would submit that the said certificate does
not bear proper authentication and on the date mentioned therein, the
alleged signatory was not even holding the post of Head Master
thereby rendering the document illegal and bogus.
5.6. He would submit that the Primary Ashram School in question
was initially established in the year 2002 subject to grant of permission
under the Central Government Scheme for residential schools for
Scheduled Caste students and was conducted on non-grant basis. He
7 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
would submit that Government Resolution dated 13.01.2006 granted
permission to run the School subject to terms and conditions and on
09.01.2007 recognition to the Primary School up to 7 th standard was
granted by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Pune.
5.7. He would submit that even after such recognition, the
institution continued as a Primary Ashram School and did not fall
within the definition of "private school" as contemplated under Section
2(20) of the MEPS Act. He would therefore submit that provisions of
MEPS Act are not applicable and Appeal filed by Petitioner under
Section 9 before the School Tribunal was not maintainable.
5.8. He would submit that it is settled legal position that
employees working in Primary Ashram Schools do not have a remedy
under Section 9 of the MEPS Act and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the School Tribunal. He would submit that the learned Presiding
Officer, School Tribunal has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on
record and recorded a categorical finding that Petitioner was working
only in the Primary School.
5.9. He would submit that findings recorded by the Tribunal are
pure findings of fact based on appreciation of documentary evidence
and do not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be
perverse. He would submit that no perversity or illegality has been
demonstrated by Petitioner in the impugned judgment.
8 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
5.10. He would place reliance upon the judgment in the case of
Suryakant Shesharao Panchal Vs. Vasanrao Naik Vimukta Jati
Bahatakya Jamati Adarsha Prasarak Mandal and Ors. 1 and submit that
the Ashram School imparting education up to primary level does not
fall within the ambit of "private school" and employees therein cannot
approach the School Tribunal.
5.11. He would further place reliance upon the judgment in the
case of Dagadu Vs. President, Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal and Others2 and submit that the appropriate remedy, if any,
lies before the Social Welfare Authorities and not before the School
Tribunal.
5.12. He would rely upon the detailed Affidavit-in-Reply dated
11.12.2023 filed by Shri Dilip Narayan Londhe, Respondent No.3 and
the President of the Respondent School. He would submit that the said
Affidavit clearly demonstrates that Petitioner was engaged only for
fixed and limited tenures, namely from 01.06.2002 to 30.04.2003 and
thereafter from 05.06.2003 to 30.04.2004 and that no appointment
order was issued thereafter, thereby completely falsifying his claim of
continuous service till 2019.
5.13. He would submit that the Affidavit clearly establishes that
Petitioner accepted the notice dated 29.04.2004 informing him that his
1 2002 (3) Mh.L.J.659
2 2006 DGCL (SC) 202
9 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
services had come to an end and thereafter he was never in
employment of the Respondent - Management. He would submit that
the Affidavit categorically denies the claim of continuous service of 17
years and asserts that Petitioner has failed to produce any
documentary evidence to support such claim.
5.14. He would submit that the Affidavit further clarifies that the
alleged experience certificate dated 08.06.2009 is a fabricated
document procured using a false stamp and signature. He would
submit that it is also specifically stated that on the relevant date, the
alleged signatory was not the Head Master and therefore the certificate
cannot be relied upon.
5.15. He would submit that the Affidavit further clarifies that the
Primary and Secondary Ashram Schools are two distinct institutions
having separate administration, separate Head Masters and separate
UDISE numbers. He would submit that Petitioner was never appointed
in the Secondary School at any point of time. He would submit that the
Affidavit also highlights that the administrative control over Ashram
Schools has been vested in the Social Welfare Department as per
Government Resolution dated 26.07.2010. He would submit that in
view of the said position, the remedy, if any, for the Petitioner's
grievance lied before the appropriate Authority in the Social Welfare
Department.
10 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
5.16. He would submit that the learned School Tribunal has rightly
considered the documentary evidence as well as the applicable legal
provisions and correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. He would
submit that the Tribunal has rightly answered all issues against the
Petitioner and dismissed the Appeal.
5.17. He would submit that Petitioner has failed to establish any
legal right, much less a fundamental or statutory right, so as to invoke
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. He would submit that the
present Writ Petition thus suffers from acquiescence, suppression of
material facts, lack of bonafides and absence of any legal entitlement.
He would submit that no interference is warranted with the well-
reasoned and legally sound judgment dated 15.02.2022 passed by the
School Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No. 55 of 2019. He would accordingly
submit that the Writ Petition be dismissed with costs.
5.18. Respondent No.3 has filed Affidavit-in-Reply dated
14.12.2023 sworn by Shri Dilip Narayan Londhe, President of
Respondent No.3 - Management opposing the present Writ Petition
and supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned School
Tribunal, Pune. I have considered the same.
6. I have heard Mr. Kalel, learned Advocate for the Petitioner;
Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 - State and
Mr. Pise, learned Advocates for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and with their
11 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
able assistance perused record of the case. Submissions made by
learned Advocates have received due consideration of the Court.
7. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the present Writ
Petition challenges the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune, whereby the Appeal
preferred by Petitioner came to be rejected on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction by holding that the provisions of the MEPS Act are not
applicable to Primary Ashram Schools.
8. The principal contention of Petitioner is that he was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 01.06.2002 and has rendered
continuous and uninterrupted service till his alleged date of
termination i.e. 17.11.2019 and therefore his services could not have
been terminated without following the due process of law as
contemplated under the provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules framed
thereunder.
9. It is the specific case of Respondents that Petitioner was
appointed only for limited and fixed tenures, namely from 01.06.2002
to 30.04.2003 and thereafter from 05.06.2003 to 30.04.2004 and that
no appointment order was issued thereafter. It is further contended
that Petitioner was never appointed in the Secondary School and was
at all times working only in the Primary Ashram School, which does
not fall within the ambit of "private school" under Section 2(20) of the
12 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
MEPS Act.
10. It is well-settled that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the
School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, two essential
conditions must be satisfied, namely: (i) the institution must fall within
the definition of "private school" as contemplated under Section 2(20)
of the MEPS Act, and (ii) the employee must establish a valid and
subsisting appointment in accordance with the statutory provisions.
11. On careful examination of the material placed on record, it is
evident that Petitioner has primarily relied upon the initial
appointment order dated 01.06.2002 and certain experience
certificates and other documents to establish continuous service till
2019. However, apart from the said initial appointment order, no
subsequent appointment orders, continuation orders or salary records
have been produced to substantiate uninterrupted service for a period
of about 17 years.
12. Respondents have specifically disputed the authenticity of
the documents relied upon by Petitioner, particularly the experience
certificate dated 08.06.2009 and have contended that the same is
fabricated and not issued by the concerned Competent Authority. It is
further pointed out that the alleged signatory to the said certificate was
not holding the post of Head Master on the relevant date.
13 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
13. In the absence of any cogent and reliable documentary
evidence to establish continuous service, the claim of Petitioner that he
worked uninterruptedly from 2002 till 2019 cannot be accepted merely
on the basis of disputed documents. What is of greater significance is
the nature of the institution in which Petitioner claims to have been
employed. The material on record, including the Affidavit-in-Reply and
Government Resolutions dated 13.01.2006 and 26.07.2010 clearly
indicate that the Primary Ashram School is governed by the Social
Welfare Department and operates under a distinct statutory and
administrative framework.
14. The contention of Petitioner that since both Primary and
Secondary sections are functioning in the same campus, the provisions
of the MEPS Act would automatically apply to both Schools, cannot be
accepted. The record clearly demonstrates that the Primary and
Secondary Ashram Schools are administratively distinct institutions
having separate management, separate Head Masters and separate
UDISE numbers.
15. The learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal has upon
appreciation of the material on record, recorded a categorical finding
that Petitioner was employed only in the Primary Ashram School. The
said finding is based on documentary evidence and does not suffer
from any perversity.
14 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
16. It is a settled position of law that employees working in
Primary Ashram Schools do not fall within the ambit of the MEPS Act
and consequently cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal
under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. In this regard, reliance placed by the
Respondents on the judgments in the cases of Suryakant Shesharao
Panchal Vs. Vasanrao Naik Vimukta Jati Bahatakya Jamati Adarsha
Prasarak Mandal (supra) and Dagadu Vs. President, Anandrao Naik
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (supra) is apposite.
17. Once it is held that the provisions of the MEPS Act are not
applicable, the very foundation of the Appeal preferred by Petitioner
before the School Tribunal stands vitiated for want of jurisdiction. In
that view of the matter, the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal
was justified in holding that the Appeal filed by Petitioner was not
maintainable. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph
Nos.11 to 27 of the judgment dated 15.02.2022 are based on proper
appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles and are upheld.
18. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error has been
demonstrated by Petitioner so as to warrant interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
19. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court
is of the considered opinion that Petitioner has failed to establish his
continuous service as alleged and has further failed to bring his case
15 of 16
WP.11769.2022.doc
within the ambit of the MEPS Act so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the
School Tribunal.
20. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings, the order
dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No.55 of 2019 does not call for any
interference. The judgment dated 15.02.2022 is upheld and confirmed.
21. Writ Petition is dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.04.01
12:16:35 +0530
16 of 16
