The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that permanent government-aided school employees cannot be summarily terminated without adherence to statutory procedures, even when their deputation ends. The judgment establishes that silence in the face of legal challenges, combined with the absence of a formal termination order, cannot extinguish service rights. This ruling has profound implications for the employment security of aided school staff across Maharashtra.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Anita Jagtap, was appointed as a permanent Assistant Teacher in a grant-in-aid school managed by the Krushak Sudhar Mandal in 1986. In 1996, she was deputed as a Lecturer at the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Amravati, under a government order that preserved her seniority and treated the deputation period as teaching experience. Her deputation was initially for one year but was extended multiple times.
Procedural History
- 1996: Petitioner deputed to DIET Amravati under Government Resolution
- 2000: State Government attempted to end deputation; petitioner challenged this in Writ Petition No. 3321/2000
- 2000: Bombay High Court ordered retention on deputation until MPSC-selected candidates were appointed
- 2004: Respondent School issued communication revoking consent for deputation and demanding return within seven days
- 2006: State Government finally ended deputation; petitioner sought rejoining but was informed her services were terminated as of October 1, 2004
- 2012: Petitioner filed Civil Application for back wages and reinstatement
- 2026: Final hearing and judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) declaration that her termination was illegal; (2) reinstatement or, in the alternative, payment of back wages from March 2006 to superannuation in June 2020; and (3) finalization of her pension papers.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a permanent employee in a grant-in-aid school can be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned her post based solely on a non-compliant resolution and an unacknowledged communication, without a formal termination order or opportunity of hearing, particularly when the employee was acting in compliance with a binding court order.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana to argue that termination without disciplinary proceedings or hearing is void ab initio. She cited M/s Somani Steels Ltd. to contend that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226, especially after prolonged litigation. She emphasized that the High Court’s 2000 order in WP No. 3321/2000 legally protected her deputation until MPSC candidates were appointed, and her failure to return immediately in 2004 was justified under that order. The No Objection Certificate issued by the school in 2000 explicitly guaranteed her right to rejoin upon deputation’s end.
For the Respondent
The Respondents argued that the petitioner had defied the 2004 communication to return to her original post, and her non-compliance amounted to constructive abandonment. They relied on Sunanda Wakhare and Educational Society, Tumsar to assert that aided schools are not financially liable for back wages, as such payments must be borne by the State Government. They further claimed the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere since 2006, rendering her claim for back wages frivolous.
The Court's Analysis
The Court meticulously examined the absence of any formal termination order, the lack of disciplinary proceedings, and the failure of the school to respond to the petitioner’s 2004 reply invoking the 2000 High Court order. The Court held that a mere resolution by the Managing Committee, without the involvement of the State Education Department as mandated under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, was legally invalid. The Court distinguished Educational Society, Tumsar by noting that while the Act requires government imprimatur for termination, here no such process was initiated at all.
"There was no termination order issued to the Petitioner... nor any communication to that effect."
The Court rejected the argument that non-joining for seven days amounted to voluntary resignation, emphasizing that the petitioner had repeatedly invoked the Court’s binding order and had received no rebuttal. The No Objection Certificate issued in 2000 was treated as a binding assurance of reemployment. The Court further held that the petitioner’s superannuation in 2020 did not extinguish her right to back wages for the period she was illegally prevented from serving. The State, as the funding authority, was held liable for arrears, not the aided school.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that the termination of her services was illegal, void, and contrary to due process. She was entitled to continuity of service for pension purposes and back wages from March 2006 to June 2020. The Court directed the State to pay the arrears and the school to finalize her pension papers.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Termination Requires Formal Order and Due Process
- Practitioners must challenge any termination based solely on resolution or communication without a formal order
- Absence of disciplinary proceedings under the Maharashtra Private Schools Rules, 1981, renders termination void
- Courts will not accept constructive abandonment where the employee has invoked a judicial order
State, Not Aided School, Bears Liability for Back Wages
- Back wages for illegally terminated aided school employees must be paid by the State Government, not the managing society
- Audit reports claiming financial incapacity cannot override statutory rights
- Sunanda Wakhare does not absolve the State when termination is illegal and state approval was required but not obtained
No Objection Certificates Create Binding Obligations
- Written assurances from school management regarding reemployment after deputation are legally enforceable
- Such documents override internal resolutions that violate court orders or statutory procedures
- Employers cannot unilaterally revoke assurances once the employee has relied on them in good faith
