[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Chandrashekhar Shamrao Rahangdale vs Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, ... on 10 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5771
1 wp-4574-23j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4574 OF 2023
Chandrashekhar Shamrao Rahangdale,
Aged 50 years, Occ. Incharge Headmaster,
Nisha Vidyalaya, Bhandara
R/o. Pragati Colony, Bhandara. . . . PETITIONER
// V E R S U S //
1. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Nagpur.
2. Adarsha Bahuuddeshiya Mandal,
Bhandara through its President,
Ambedkar Ward, Bhandara.
3. Nisha Vidyalaya through its Headmaster
Ambedkar Ward, Bhandara.
4. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Department of Education
and Sports, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400032.
5. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. M. R. Kavimandan, AGP for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5/State.
Ms. Ritu Jog a/w. Shri A. C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent
nos. 2.
None for respondent no. 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
RESERVED ON :- 17.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON :- 10.04.2026
2 wp-4574-23j.odt
JUDGMENT :
-
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
3. The petition seeks issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari by quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.07.2023
passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur (for short,
"the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 25/2022.
4. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a
post with respondent nos. 2 and 3 which fell vacant due to the
termination vide termination order dated 30.04.1994 of one Mulchand
Kukade, Assistant Teacher, an ex-employee of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
The appointment of the petitioner was on ad-hoc basis w.e.f.
09.10.1996 till the decision of the Court in the proceeding bearing Writ
Petition No. 1703/2009 filed by Shri Kukade. On the backdrop it is
stated that, Shri Kukade had filed an Appeal bearing No. 338/1996
before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed on 25.01.2008. He
carried the said order in Writ Petition No. 1703/2009 and respondent
nos. 2 and 3 were directed to reinstate Shri Kukade.
3 wp-4574-23j.odt
5. Meanwhile, the petitioner got confirmation as a
permanent employee with respondent no. 3. Since, the appointment
of the petitioner was subject to outcome of the decision of the
proceedings filed by Shri Kukade, vide termination order dated
03.10.2022, the petitioner was terminated by respondent no. 2.
Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said order under Section 9 of
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, "MEPS Act") before the Tribunal.
Ultimately, the appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order
which is under challenge.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and
gone through the record.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my
knowledge that the termination order dated 03.10.2022 of the
petitioner was stayed vide interim order dated 04.10.2022 of the
Tribunal and the petitioner was working on the same post. Needless to
mention that, the stay order was vacated by the Tribunal vide order
dated 21.11.2022 which was challenged in Writ Petition No.
7577/2022. The said writ petition was disposed of on an undertaking
given by the petitioner that he will not claim salary unless he succeeds
4 wp-4574-23j.odt
before the Tribunal and based on it, the petitioner was permitted to
work. The appeal before the Tribunal was decided on 13.07.2023.
8. Further, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.2 fairly conceded that, under the dictum of this Court, the
petitioner is still working with respondent no.2 and till date no salary
has been paid. Since, Shri Kukade is retired on 31.03.2023, the
petitioner shall be entitled to the salary from 01.04.2023 till date.
9. It is also contended that, the petitioner is working with
respondent no. 3 school. The petitioner has stated on affidavit
informing that even after absorbing the petitioner, one more post is
vacant in the respondent no. 3- school out of permitted strength.
10. Respondent nos. 2 has also filed reply inter-alia
contending that, the petitioner was appointed on the post which was
earlier held by Shri Kukade and vide order dated 30.09.2022 of this
Court in Writ Petition No. 1703/2009 he was required to be reinstated
as the appointment of the petitioner was conditional one and
subjected upon the outcome of the proceedings filed by Shri Kukade,
who was reinstated vide the order passed in the above-said Writ
Petition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for continuation in
service.
5 wp-4574-23j.odt
11. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent
no. 2 that, the appointment letter has been issued by the President of
respondent no. 2 and is against Section 5 of the MEPS Act. It is further
contended that, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to only see
whether the order passed by the sub-ordinate Court or Tribunal is
perverse and the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of the
facts. The order passed by the Tribunal is a well reasoned order and
therefore, no interference is required by this Court. According to
respondent no. 2, the petitioner having accepted the condition given in
the contract of his service i.e. appointment of the petitioner will be
subject to outcome of the decision of the Court in the matter filed by
Shri Kukade hence, he is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him
and respondent nos. 2 and 3 have rightly terminated the services of
the petitioner after reinstatement of Shri Kukade. It is also submitted
that there is no vacant post with respondent no.3 to accommodate the
petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 sought
rejection of the petition.
12. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
reveals that, the Tribunal has observed that the appointment of the
petitioner is not in accordance with Section 5 of the MEPS Act. The
6 wp-4574-23j.odt
reason for coming to this conclusion by the Tribunal is that, the
petitioner's appointment was conditional and subject to the decision of
the Court in the proceedings filed by Shri Kukade, an employee who
was terminated from his service. No doubt, in wake of reinstatement
of Shri Mulchand Kukade, the appointment which was conditional one,
respondent no.2 rightly stopped the services of the petitioner. But, just
because, the appointment of the petitioner was conditional one, it
cannot be said that, the appointment was not in accordance with
Section 5 of the MEPS Act when particularly the appointment of the
petitioner was made after advertising and taking interview for the said
post. The conditional appointment by itself cannot be termed to be
illegal as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act.
13. Much stress has been placed by the learned counsel for
respondent no. 2 that, the appointment order is required to be signed
by the Secretary of the Society whereas in the present case it is signed
by the President of the Society, therefore the appointment is not valid.
This argument does not lie in the mouth of respondent no. 2, who
himself issued the appointment order to the petitioner and just
because it is not signed by the Secretary of the Society it cannot be
called illegal, because here the law of Estoppel will come in the way of
respondent no. 2. Once, the petitioner has been appointed and
successfully completed tenure of more than 25 years, after that long
7 wp-4574-23j.odt
period, respondent nos.2 and 3 who appointed the petitioner cannot
say that the appointment of the petitioner was not legal because the
appointment letter was not signed by the Secretary of the Society as
per the MEPS Act. More particularly, when the Secretary of the
Society, who runs the school or the Headmaster of the School did not
take any objection against the appointment of the petitioner for almost
25 years. Hence, the submission made by the learned counsel for
respondent no. 2 and 3 does not sustain in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the decisions in the cases of Pankaj Babarao Shingane Vs.
Janta Education Society1, Janta Education Society Vs. Prakash Babarao
Shingane2 and Ashok Asramji Gabhane Vs. Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal and ors.3 will not be helpful to respondent no. 2.
14. The only question now remains is what will be the fate of
the petitioner, who is still working with respondent no.3 School under
the interim arrangement made by the Court. In the reply filed by
respondent no. 5- the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara it is revealed that the petitioner was working since last 28
years and now Shri Kukade, who was reinstated by the order of the
Court is superannuated on 31.03.2023 and the post which is a
sanctioned post is still vacant, hence the petitioner can be
1 2022 (1) Mh.LJ 243
2 2010 (8) SLR 753
3 2002 (4) Mh.LJ 225
8 wp-4574-23j.odt
accommodated on the said post. Whereas, respondent nos. 2 opposes
this submission of respondent no. 5. According to it, the appointment
of the petitioner was subject to outcome of the result of the petition
filed by Shri Kukade. It is also contended by respondent no.2 that
thohgh Shri Kukade has retired, there is no post vacant to
accommodate the petitioner.
15. No doubt, the appointment of the petitioner was subject to
the outcome of the proceedings filed by Shri Kukade and he was
reinstated but, the fact remains that the appointment of the petitioner
was made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act by publishing the
advertisement for the post. The petitioner worked on the said post for
almost 28 years. It is to be noted that the termination order of the
petitioner was stayed by the Tribunal and remained continue till
disposal of the appeal. In this writ petition, the effect and operation of
the order of the Tribunal was stayed by order dated 24.02.2023
whereby the petitioner continued to work and he is still working with
respondent no.3 School under the interim arrangement made by this
Court. Now, since Shri Kukade has retired on 31.03.2023 and the said
post is still vacant. Therefore, the petitioner is required to be
accommodated in the same school. Therefore, in wake of Rule 26 of
the MEPS Act, the petitioner can be accommodated on the vacant post
which is a clear vacancy and falls vacant due to retirement of the very
9 wp-4574-23j.odt
same person- Shri Kukade. If no post is available as claimed by
respondent no.2 to accommodate the petitioner in the same school,
respondent no.5 shall declare the petitioner as surplus under the
provisions of the MEPS Act and the Rules thereof.
16. However, these aspects were not considered by the
Tribunal. Therefore, this Court under the supervisory jurisdiction of
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can give direction which
ought to have been given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the decision in
the cases of Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim 4 and State of Haryana
Vs. Manoj Kumar5 will not be helpful to respondent no. 2. Since, the
Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not directing respondent
nos.2 and 3 to accommodate the petitioner on the post which falls
vacant due to retirement of Shri Kukade on 31.03.2023 since the
appointment of the petitioner was as made as per Section 5 of the
MEPS Act.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
i) The order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the School Tribunal
dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is set aside.
4 AIR 1984 SC 38
5 (2010) 4 SCC 350
10 wp-4574-23j.odt
ii) Respondent no.2 is directed to continue the petitioner on
the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 01.04.2023 which fell
vacant due to retirement of Shri Mulchand Kukade, Assistant Teacher.
In any case, if there is no post available which is to be decided by the
Education Officer and if the Education Officer comes to the conclusion
that respondent no.2 cannot accommodate the petitioner in wake of
non-availability of vacant post, the Education Officer shall follow Rules
25 and 26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 declaring the petitioner as surplus.
iii) While considering the issue of vacancy with respondent
nos.2 and 3, the Education Officer (respondent no.5) shall not
consider any post which has been filled in after 31.03.2023.
iv) It is to be noted that on the request of the petitioner this
Court had permitted him to work without salary till the decision of the
Tribunal. The amount of Rs.16,21,360/- towards salary came to be
deposited in this Court. The amount of Rs.16,21,360/- along with
accrued interest, if any, shall be remitted to the Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara with a direction to calculate the
salary of the petitioner from 01.04.2023 and pay the amount to the
petitioner as per his entitlement.
11 wp-4574-23j.odt
v) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
18. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, at this stage seeks
stay to the effect and operation of this order for six weeks since,
respondent no.2 wants to get the order tested before the Supreme
Court. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
According to him, the petitioner is without salary since the date of his
termination. Considering the submissions, there shall be stay to the
effect and operation of this order for a period of four weeks to the
extent of accommodation of the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Teacher which fell vacant due to retirement of Shri Kukade.
19. In the meanwhile, the petitioner who as on today is
working in respondent no.3 school shall continue to work with
respondent no. 3- School.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
RR Jaiswal
