The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that even in private educational institutions, termination of long-serving employees without adherence to statutory procedure under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, is illegal and void. This judgment establishes that continuity of service over a decade, coupled with absence of due process, entitles an employee to reinstatement and full backwages, regardless of initial appointment status.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bharat Ramchandra Shirsat, was employed by the N.E.S. High School and Junior College, managed by Respondent No.1 - Trust. His employment spanned over ten years, beginning in September 2009 as Librarian at Respondent No.6 - College, and continuing after 2014 as Junior Clerk at N.E.S. High School. His services were abruptly terminated on 22.07.2019 through oral communication, without notice, inquiry, or written order. The termination followed the closure of Respondent No.6 - College due to declining enrollment, and the petitioner was replaced by Respondent No.8, who is allegedly a relative of Respondent No.2 - President of the Trust.
Key Facts
- Petitioner was initially appointed as Librarian in September 2009, with formal approval from Respondent No.7 - Deputy Director of Education dated 13.07.2011 for the period 01.01.2011 to 31.08.2011.
- Despite the temporary nature of the 2011 approval, petitioner continued in service without interruption from September 2009 until July 2019.
- On 24.11.2014, Respondent No.4 - Principal issued an absorption order transferring petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk at N.E.S. High School.
- Petitioner performed duties diligently, attended mandatory training conducted by Respondent No.5 - Education Officer, and received a Certificate dated 14.11.2018.
- No adverse remarks, complaints, or disciplinary proceedings were recorded against him during his entire tenure.
- On 22.07.2019, petitioner was orally informed by Respondent No.4 not to report for duty, and was denied entry to the premises.
- No show-cause notice, inquiry, or termination order was issued.
- No statutory one-month notice under Rule 28 of MEPS Rules, 1981, was given.
- Respondent No.8 was appointed to the same post of Junior Clerk after petitioner’s termination.
- Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act on 09.10.2019.
- On 14.12.2020, petitioner sought production of documents including staff lists and appointment records of Respondent No.8.
- On 10.01.2022, the School Tribunal directed production of these documents.
- On 25.02.2022, the Tribunal observed that Respondents failed to produce originals and warned of adverse inference.
- Respondents produced only illegible copies and did not produce the original absorption order dated 24.11.2014.
- School Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 23.09.2022, holding petitioner was a temporary employee and his termination was legal.
- Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 05.11.2022.
Procedural History
- September 2009: Petitioner appointed as Librarian at Respondent No.6 - College.
- 13.07.2011: Approval granted by Respondent No.7 for temporary appointment as Librarian (01.01.2011 to 31.08.2011).
- 24.11.2014: Absorption order issued by Principal transferring petitioner to Junior Clerk at N.E.S. High School.
- 14.11.2018: Petitioner awarded training certificate by Education Officer.
- 22.07.2019: Oral termination of services without notice or reason.
- 09.10.2019: Appeal filed under Section 9 of MEPS Act before School Tribunal, Pune (Appeal No.9 of 2020).
- 14.12.2020: Petitioner applied for production of documents.
- 10.01.2022: Tribunal directed Respondents to produce staff lists and appointment records of Respondent No.8.
- 25.02.2022: Tribunal reiterated direction and warned of adverse inference for non-production.
- 31.03.2022: Respondent No.1 filed application for amendment of Written Statement.
- 23.09.2022: School Tribunal dismissed appeal, holding petitioner was temporary and termination was valid.
- 05.11.2022: Writ Petition filed before Bombay High Court.
- 08.06.2026: Judgment delivered by Bombay High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) reinstatement to the post of Junior Clerk at N.E.S. High School; (2) full backwages from 22.07.2019 until reinstatement; (3) 9% interest on backwages; (4) costs; and (5) directions to Respondents 2 to 4 to personally ensure compliance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an employee with over ten years of continuous service, employed by a private educational institution regulated by the MEPS Act, can be terminated orally without notice, inquiry, or statutory compliance, and whether such termination invalidates the employment relationship despite initial temporary status.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that despite the 2011 approval being labeled temporary, the petitioner’s uninterrupted service from 2009 to 2019 constituted deemed permanency under Section 5 of the MEPS Act. He relied on the absorption order dated 24.11.2014, training certificate, and continuous duty records to establish continuity. He contended that oral termination without notice, inquiry, or reason violated Rule 26 and Rule 28 of the MEPS Rules, 1981. He cited Bharat Education Society v. Balaraman Vembulu to argue that retrenchment requires prior approval of the Education Department. He further argued that non-production of vital documents by Respondents warranted adverse inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
For the Respondent/State
Respondents contended that petitioner’s appointment was strictly temporary and confined to the period 01.01.2011 to 31.08.2011. They claimed the absorption order dated 24.11.2014 was fabricated by the Principal in collusion with the petitioner. They argued that no post of Junior Clerk was sanctioned by the State, and only Respondents 5 and 7 had authority to absorb employees. They asserted that since petitioner was never a permanent employee, MEPS Rules did not apply, and oral termination was permissible. They further claimed petitioner had unclean hands and suppressed facts regarding his employment status.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the Respondents’ contention that petitioner was merely a temporary employee. It emphasized that continuous service for over ten years, without break, in the same managing entity, irrespective of initial appointment label, triggers deemed permanency under Section 5 of the MEPS Act. The Court noted that the petitioner’s duties as Librarian and later as Junior Clerk were performed diligently, with no adverse remarks, and included participation in state-mandated training.
"It is seen that though his appointment was for eight months, services of Petitioner were continued uninterrupted from September 2009 till July 2019 without any break by Respondent No.1 - Trust in its twin Education Institutions."
The Court held that the absorption order, even if challenged as fabricated, was corroborated by petitioner’s documented work in TC Books and receipts from 2016 to 2019, establishing continuity. The Court further held that the failure of Respondents to produce the staff list and appointment records of Respondent No.8, despite explicit directions, warranted an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
The Court emphasized that even if petitioner were considered temporary, Rule 28(1) of the MEPS Rules mandated a one-month notice of termination. The complete absence of notice, inquiry, charge sheet, or hearing rendered the termination illegal. The Court distinguished the case from mere contractual terminations, noting that the MEPS Act imposes statutory obligations on private institutions receiving state recognition.
"It is further seen that Respondent No.1 terminated Petitioner after its establishment i.e. Respondent No.6 shut down however Respondent No.1 failed to produce any document or material on record to show approval for termination / retrenchment of employees was sought from Respondent No.7 - Deputy Director of Education."
The Court relied on Constable Uma Shankaran v. Union of India to affirm that where termination is illegal and no alternate employment is proven, denial of backwages is unjustified. The Court rejected the Tribunal’s award of six months’ compensation as inadequate, noting the stigma and financial hardship caused by a decade-long service abruptly ended without cause.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Bombay High Court set aside the School Tribunal’s order dated 23.09.2022, quashed the oral termination, and directed immediate reinstatement of the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk at N.E.S. High School. The Court ordered full backwages from 22.07.2019 until reinstatement, with interest at 9% per annum. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 were directed to pay all amounts within two weeks. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 were held personally liable for compliance, and failure to comply would attract contempt proceedings. The request for a stay on the judgment was denied.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Deemed Permanency Arises from Continuous Service, Not Just Appointment Label
- Practitioners must argue that continuous service exceeding five years under the same managing entity, even if initially labeled temporary, triggers deemed permanency under Section 5 of the MEPS Act.
- Documentation of duties, training, and institutional records (e.g., TC Books, attendance) are critical to proving continuity.
- Temporary appointment letters cannot override factual continuity of service.
Non-Production of Documents Triggers Adverse Inference
- Courts will draw adverse inference against parties who fail to produce documents despite court orders, especially when those documents relate to employment status or replacement.
- This applies even if the documents are claimed to be fabricated - the burden shifts to the non-producing party to explain the absence.
Oral Termination Is Always Illegal Under MEPS Act
- No termination under the MEPS Act is valid without written notice, reasons, and opportunity of hearing.
- Employers cannot rely on informal or oral orders to terminate employees, even in private institutions.
- Failure to comply with Rule 26 (for permanent employees) or Rule 28 (for temporary employees) renders termination void ab initio.
Backwages Are Automatic Upon Illegal Termination
- Where termination is held illegal and no proof of alternate employment exists, backwages must be awarded in full, including interest.
- Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is insufficient where the employee’s service was unblemished and the termination was arbitrary.
- The Uma Shankaran precedent now binds all tribunals and courts in Maharashtra in MEPS Act cases.
