[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sou. Sneha Dattatraya Chaudhari vs Sane Guruji Shikshan Sanstha And Ors on 5 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:5984
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16728 OF 2023
Sou. Sneha Dattatraya Chaudhari, ]
Aged 34 years, Occ. Nil, ]
R/o. C-510, Chaurang Smitishilp, ]
Mahadev Nagar, Manjari Road, ]
Manjari Bk, Hadapsar, ]
Pune-411 307. ] ...Petitioner
Versus
1) Sane Guruji Shikshan Sanstha, ]
Hadapsar, Pune- 411 028, ]
Through its President/ ]
Secretary. ]
2) Adarsh Vidya Mandir ]
School No. 3, ]
Hadapsar, Bhekrai Nagar, ]
Pune- 411 028, ]
Through its Head Master. ]
3) The Education Officer ]
[Primary], ]
Zilla Parishad. Pune. ]
4) The Deputy Director of ]
Education, ]
Pune Region, Pune- 411 001. ] ...Respondents
------------------
Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar a/w Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar, Mr. Rajendra
Khaire, Mr. Aniket Phapale i/b Ms. Ashwini Bandiwadekar, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Shailendra Kanetkar a/w Mr. Shubham Suryawanshi, for the
Respondent No. 1 and 2.
Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent No. 4.
----------------------
Arya Chavan 1/13
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
RESERVED ON : January 27th,2026
PRONOUNCED ON : February 5th, 2026
--------------
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. With consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and
taken up for final disposal.
2. The petition challenges the judgment and order dated 10 th
March, 2022 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune dismissing Appeal No.
58 of 2019 filed by the Petitioner filed under Section 9 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 [for short "MEPS Act, 1977"].
3. It is the Petitioner's case that she is a qualified trained
teacher possessing H.S.C and D.Ed. qualification and was appointed in
the Respondent No. 2-School, run and managed by the Respondent No.
1 with effect from 1st October, 2011 after following due procedure of
law in a clear, vacant and permanent post and that her appointment is
duly approved by the Education Department. The Petitioner was initially
appointed as unaided teacher and though pay scale was increased vide
order dated 9th November, 2015, the same was never paid to the
Petitioner. The seniority list of 30 th April, 2018 prepared by the
Respondents was defective to which objection was raised by the
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
Petitioner orally as well as by letter dated 10th August, 2019.
4. The basis for oral termination is stated to be the
Petitioner's absence on 4th and 5th December, 2019 which was
communicated to a senior teacher and could not be communicated to
the principal of Respondent No 2 school, which led to the harassment
and ultimately oral termination till finalisation of decision of school
authorities.
5. The case of the management is that Appeal is barred by
limitation as alleged cause of action is seniority list of 30 th April, 2018.
The Petitioner's appointment was temporary appointment and not
against a permanent vacant post. The Petitioner was from time to time
appointed on temporary basis for the academic year and her temporary
appointment was on non-grant aid basis. The management has never
orally terminated the services of the Petitioner and there is voluntary
abandonment. The seniority list was prepared by Respondent No. 2-
School for obtaining grant from the Government and the name of the
Petitioner was mentioned as she had worked for the year 2018. The
Petitioner being temporary appointee, the question of superseding
seniority does not arise.
6. The School Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and order
dismissed the appeal on twin grounds of failure to prove appointment
on clear, vacant and permanent post and oral termination.
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
7. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior advocate appearing for
the Petitioner would point out the pleading in the appeal and the
approval order dated 9th November, 2015 of the Education Officer
approving the Petitioner's appointment as assistant teacher from 1 st
October, 2011. He submits that the approval order does not show
approval to the appointment on temporary post. He further points out
that condition no. 2 of the approval order specifically requires the
appointment to be in conformity with the staffing pattern. He would
further point out the list at 'Exhibit B' prepared by the Respondent No.
2-School giving details of the approvals granted to employees on
sanctioned post which includes the name of the Petitioner. He submits
that there was no requirement of producing any other documentary
evidence to prove the Petitioner's regular appointment. He would
further submit that the management cannot be permitted to take
advantage of its wrong even if it is presumed that the Petitioner was
irregularly appointed particularly considering that the Petitioner was
working in the Respondent No. 2-School since last 8 years drawing
support from the decision of this Court in the case of Balasaheb
Ramchandra Burke And Others vs President, Bahujan Samaj
Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha And Others1.
8. He would further submit that the services of the Petitioner
came to be orally terminated on 23 rd December, 2019 and the case of
1 2016(3)Bom.C.R. 197
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
the Respondents is of abandonment of services which would require an
inquiry before termination which has not been done in the present case.
9. Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents would submit that the Petitioner's foundation for oral
termination is her absence on 4th and 5th December, 2019 and there is no
pleading as to when she resumed the services. He would submit that the
Petitioner has failed to prove that her appointment was on clear, vacant
and permanent post as her appointment order has not been produced
and further it is the specific case of the management that the Petitioner
has voluntarily left the temporary services. He submits that as the
Petitioner claimed that she had informed another senior teacher about
the emergency for which she had taken leave, it was open for the
Petitioner to examine the teacher to prove her case that she had not
abandoned her services.
10. In rejoinder, Mr. Bandiwadekar would submit that the
procedure before the School Tribunal does not permit leading of
evidence. He would further submit that the Tribunal did not render any
finding of abandonment of services and the Appeal has been rejected
on the ground of failure to prove oral termination. He would further
submit that under Rule 16 (3) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, it is only when a
permanent employee is absent from duty without leave continuously
for a period exceeding 3 years that the employee shall be deemed to
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
have voluntarily abandoned the service. He submits that there is no
notice and no disciplinary action taken. He submits that the Petitioner
has been in continuous employment since 2011 to 2019 and there is no
evidence produced to show temporary appointment.
11. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
12. The School Tribunal rejected the Appeal on two grounds:(a)
failure to prove appointment on clear, vacant, permanent post and (b)
failure to prove oral termination.
13. The Petitioner has approached the Tribunal against the oral
termination on 23rd December, 2019. In order to be entitled to the relief
of setting aside the termination, the burden was upon the Petitioner to
prove that she was duly appointed as per procedure of law in clear
vacant and permanent vacancy and the factum of oral termination. In
support of her appointment on permanent post, the solitary
documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner is the approval order
dated 1st October, 2011 of the Education Officer. The pleadings in the
appeal memo as regards her permanent appointment without being
substantiated by necessary documents are insufficient to arrive at a
conclusive finding of the permanent appointment of the Petitioner. The
permanent appointments are governed by Section 5 of the MEPS Act.
Sub Section (1) of Section 5 requires the management to ascertain the
availability of surplus persons before filling in the permanent vacancy.
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
Sub section (2) of Section 5 states that every person appointed to fill a
permanent vacancy except assistant teacher (probationary) shall be on
probation for period of two years and the assistant teacher
(probationary) for period of three years and on completion shall be
deemed to have been confirmed.
14. There is no whisper in the appeal memo about the manner
of appointment, the completion of period of probation, the
confirmation by the management and/or deemed confirmation of the
Petitioner. The appointment order is a primary evidence in possession of
the Petitioner and there is no explanation for non production of the said
document. The absence in the approval order that approval is being
granted to temporary appointment cuts both ways as the approval
order also does not mention about approval being granted to the
permanent appointment of the Petitioner. The mere mention in the
approval order that the appointment should meet the staffing pattern
cannot lead to a conclusion of Petitioner's appointment being
permanent appointment. In so far as the document at Exhibit "B" of the
Petition is concerned, the pleading in the petition in paragraph 5 is that
the same is the seniority list of all teachers and non teaching staff.
There is no pleading in the Petition that the seniority list pertains to
which year and in paragraph 6 it is pleaded that on 30 th April, 2018, the
Respondent published the seniority list in which the Petitioner was
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
placed at sr no 39. The list at Exhibit "B" does not appear to be the
seniority list and the heading reads as information about the individual
approvals granted to the existing teachers on sanctioned post. The list
cannot be accepted in support of the contention that the Petitioner was
permanent employee of the Respondent No 2 school.
15. Section 5(1) and (2) of the MEPS Act does not forbid the
management from making an appointment on temporary basis or for
limited duration against permanent vacancy. The approval is under Rule
8(2) of MEPS Rules, which requires the names and particulars of
qualifications and experience of the appointed person to be forwarded
to the education officer. Based only on the approval order, the Court
cannot presume that the Petitioner was duly selected after following
due procedure of law on permanent and vacant post or that the
Petitioner's appointment was regular appointment on permanent basis
against clear vacant and permanent vacancy.
16. The Tribunal has rightly arrived at the finding that the
Petitioner has failed to prove that she is permanent employee as there
is no pleading as to the procedure followed by the management during
her appointment. The reliance on Balasaheb Ramchandra Burke and
Others vs President, Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha
and Others (supra) is misplaced as in that case the management
claimed that the appointment was unlawful appointment. In the present
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
case, the Respondent claims that the Petitioner had never acquired the
status of permanent employee and therefore the burden was upon the
Petitioner to prove that she was permanent employee, which material is
found lacking.
17. In so far as the oral termination on 23 rd December, 2019 is
concerned, the stand of the management is that the Petitioner has
voluntarily left her temporary services. The specific pleading in that
respect is found in paragraph 4 of the reply before the Tribunal which
reads as under:
"4......The Appellant has voluntarily left her temporary services
since as per her wish and whims from 23/12/2019 as alleged. The
Respondent management never given oral or as well as written
termination order to the Appellant and respondent no 2 also never
refused to attained the services to the Appellant. Respondent No 2
and prior to that or thereafter till the date the management has
not given any oral otherwise termination order in writing to the
Appellant. ......Furthermore, the alleged incident dated 23/12/2019
is false & concoted...."
18. In response to the pleadings in paragraph 4 of the Appeal
memo as regards the absenteeism on 4 th December, 2019 and 5th
December, 2019, the management has responded in paragraph 6 of its
reply affidavit as under:
"....The Appellant on 04/12/2019 to 23/12/2019 never made any
communication with the Res No 2 school either physically or on
telephonic regarding joining of school either physically or on
telephonic regarding joining of school. The respondent at the
relevant period not worked with res No 1 & 2 as an
Asst.Teacher....".
19. In paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit, it is pleaded by the
management as under:
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
".....Further name of the Appellant mentioned therein as
Appellant worked for Year 2018...."
20. Though not happily drafted, the case of the management as
evident from the reply affidavit admits the appointment of the
Petitioner in the Respondent No 2 school in the year 2011 albeit on
temporary basis and from time to time for the academic year. The
pleading also shows that the Petitioner was working as Assistant
teacher in the year 2018 and her name was mentioned in the seniority
list. The management has denied the oral termination and pleaded
about voluntary abandonment of services. As discussed above, there is
no evidence produced by the Petitioner to show that she was
permanent employee of the Respondent No 2 school and therefore
there is no question of termination being required to be preceded by
inquiry. The question of applicability of Rule 16(3) of MEPS Rules would
apply in case of permanent employee and as the Petitioner has failed to
prove her status of permanent employee, there is no question of
applicability of the said Rule.
21. As far as abandonment of services is concerned, there is no
finding of the Tribunal that the Petitioner had voluntarily abandoned
the services. There is also no evidence to show that in the year 2019, the
Petitioner was working with the Respondent No 2 school. The pleading
of the management is that for the relevant period, the Petitioner was
not working as Assistant Teacher in which case, the Petitioner ought to
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
have brought some evidence on record to show her services for the year
2019.
22. The basis for oral termination is stated to be the
absenteeism of the Petitioner on 4th December, 2019 and 5th December,
2019. The oral termination is alleged to be at the hands of the head
master of Respondent No 2 school. The pleading about harassment
from 6th December, 2019 till 23rd December, 2019 is bereft of any details
and is extremely vague. There is no reason stated for the headmaster to
harass the Petitioner over her absence of two days, particularly when
she was thereafter permitted to resume her services. In event she was
prevented from attending her duties on 23 rd December, 2019, the
ordinary conduct would be to communicate with the management and
inform them about the harassment and oral termination. There is no
such pleading about any oral or written representation made to the
management which creates a doubt about the the oral termination by
the headmaster. In the appeal memo it is pleaded that the oral
termination was till finalisation of decision of school authorities, which
has not been explained. At the same time, there is no specific pleading
by the management as to the period when the services of the Petitioner
were not continued by the management as it is admitted that atleast till
the year 2018, the Petitioner was working with the school.
23. Reliance placed by Mr. Kanetkar on the decision in the case
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
of Shobha Madhukar Zambare vs State of Maharashtra And Others 2
is misplaced. In that case, the Petitioner who was also employed by the
present Respondents and whose services were claimed to have been
orally terminated on 10th August, 2019 was not accepted by the Learned
Single Judge as the Court did not believe the stand taken by her qua her
termination as in that case she had filed an identical representation as
regards the seniority on 10th August, 2019 which did not mention her
termination claimed on the same day of 10 th August, 2019. The case of
the management of voluntarily abandonment was accepted by
considering the conduct of the Petitioner and the Petition came to be
rejected. The fact of the present case are different and the decision in
inapplicable.
24. The factual position emerging is that the Petitioner was
working with the Respondent school from the year 2011 till atleast the
year 2018 and on the date of filing of the appeal, she was not in services
of the Respondent No 2 school. Having failed to prove that she was
permanent employee of the Respondent No 2 school or her oral
termination, it is not possible to order her reinstatement as that would
grant her permanent status. However, considering the services
rendered by the Petitioner atleast for period from 2011 to 2018 in
whatever capacity - permanent or non permanent, in the facts of the
case, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct payment of
2 WP No. 2054 of 2024 decided on 24th February, 2025
WP-16728-2023 (final).doc
compensation to the Petitioner. Section 11 of the MEPS Act speaks of
the powers of Tribunal to give appropriate reliefs and directions.
Section 11(2)(e) provides for payment of compensation amounting to
twelve months salary or six months salary (pay and allowances, if any)
for services for ten years or more and less than ten years respectively.
25. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of with direction to the
Respondents to pay to the Petitioner six months salary as per the last
paid salary with allowances, if any, within period of four weeks from
today. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)
