The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant judgment clarifying that approvals for teacher appointments in private schools must strictly correspond to the selection process under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Court quashed the illegal interchange of approvals between an aided post reserved for VJNT category and an unaided post, restoring the petitioner’s rightful appointment and directing payment of unpaid salary with costs imposed on errant authorities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Pratibha Darade, was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on a partially aided post reserved for Vimukta Jati and Nomadic Tribes (VJNT) pursuant to an advertisement dated 08-07-2005 issued by the Gramodyogik Shikshan Mandal (Respondent no.4). However, the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Beed (Respondent no.2) illegally interchanged her approval with that of Manjusha Mule (Respondent no.7), who was appointed on an unreserved unaided post through a separate selection process dated 21-05-2005. This interchange deprived the petitioner of her rightful benefits, including salary, seniority, and absorption.
Key Facts
15-06-2005: Respondent no.7 appointed on unreserved unaided post of Shikshan Sevak pursuant to advertisement dated 21-05-2005.
16-06-2005: Vacancy for partially aided post reserved for VJNT arose due to resignation of Mr. Jaypalsingh Ghoti.
08-07-2005: School Management issued another advertisement for filling partially aided posts reserved for SC, ST, and VJNT/OBC categories.
15-07-2005: Petitioner appointed on partially aided post reserved for VJNT pursuant to the 08-07-2005 advertisement.
17-08-2005: School Management submitted proposals to the Education Officer for approval of both appointments.
13-02-2006: Education Officer granted initial approvals to both appointments as per their respective posts.
03-03-2006: School Management requested interchange of approvals, seeking Respondent no.7’s approval for the partially aided VJNT post and petitioner’s approval for the unreserved unaided post.
28-03-2006: Education Officer illegally interchanged the approvals without notice or justification.
21-07-2012: Petitioner learnt of the illegal interchange through a communication from the Education Officer.
2015: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2675 of 2015 seeking restoration of her rightful approval.
25-01-2017: High Court directed the Education Officer to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner’s representation.
30-06-2017: Education Officer observed that the petitioner was appointed on an unaided post and directed her to be shifted to an aided post upon vacancy creation.
23-01-2021: Petitioner’s services terminated by the School Management citing reduction in classes.
26-01-2021: Termination order issued by the School Headmaster.
2022: Petitioner appealed to the School Tribunal, Latur, which set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with full back wages.
2023: School Management challenged the Tribunal’s order in Writ Petition No.1757 of 2024 (pending).
Procedural History
2015: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2675 of 2015 seeking approval on the aided post.
25-01-2017: High Court disposed of the petition with directions to the Education Officer.
07-04-2017: Education Officer conducted a hearing on the petitioner’s representation.
30-06-2017: Education Officer passed an order observing the petitioner’s appointment on an unaided post and directing her shift to an aided post upon vacancy.
2018: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5331 of 2018 challenging the 30-06-2017 order.
2021: School Management filed Writ Petition No.14300 of 2021 challenging the Education Officer’s reply affidavit in Writ Petition No.5331 of 2018.
08-09-2023: School Tribunal, Latur, set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement with back wages.
11-06-2026: High Court reserved judgment in both writ petitions.
17-06-2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
Quashing of the Education Officer’s order dated 30-06-2017.
Restoration of approval for the partially aided VJNT post from 15-07-2005 and approval for Respondent no.7 on the unreserved unaided post from 15-06-2005.
Payment of unpaid salary from 15-07-2005 as per the prescribed pay scale.
The Legal Issue
The central questions before the Court were:
Whether the School Management could seek interchange of approvals between the petitioner and Respondent no.7?
Whether the Education Officer was justified in interchanging the approvals, effectively altering the appointments contrary to the selection process?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Respondent no.7 was appointed on an unreserved unaided post pursuant to the 21-05-2005 selection process, while the partially aided VJNT post was not part of this process.
The petitioner was appointed on the partially aided VJNT post pursuant to the 08-07-2005 advertisement, in which Respondent no.7 did not participate.
The Education Officer had no authority to interchange approvals, as no law permits such an act.
The School Management’s conduct was mala fide, aimed at protecting Respondent no.7’s interests.
The Writ Petition No.14300 of 2021 filed by the School Management was not bona fide and sought to create confusion.
For the Respondents
School Management (Respondent no.4)
The School Management contended that the petitioner was rightly placed on the unaided post as it was open to general categories.
It argued that it had consistently pursued the Education Officer for the petitioner’s absorption.
The School Management submitted that no illegality was committed and that it was keen to ensure the petitioner received appropriate relief.
It proposed that both writ petitions be disposed of in terms of prayer clause ‘C’ of Writ Petition No.14300 of 2021.
Education Officer (Respondent no.2)
The Education Officer submitted that the record was old (2005), making it difficult to ascertain the reasons for the approval orders.
It sought to cast liability on the School Management for the interchange.
Respondent no.7
Disputed the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner’s grievance should be addressed to the School Management and Education Officer.
Submitted that she was not at fault and that her interests should be protected.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the selection processes, approvals, and the legality of interchanging appointments:
“An approval is an individual approval which must correspond to the terms and conditions prescribed in the selection procedure in which a candidate is appointed; and approval cannot be granted for such post which was not part of the selection procedure; nor can be granted for which a candidate didn’t undergo its selection procedure.”
The selection processes dated 21-05-2005 and 08-07-2005 were independent and distinct. Respondent no.7 was appointed on an unreserved unaided post pursuant to the 21-05-2005 process, while the petitioner was appointed on a partially aided VJNT post pursuant to the 08-07-2005 process.
The vacancy for the VJNT post arose only after Respondent no.7’s appointment, due to the resignation of Mr. Jaypalsingh Ghoti.
The School Management failed to justify its request to interchange approvals. The letter dated 03-03-2006 falsely stated that Respondent no.7 was appointed on 20-05-2006 on the VJNT post, which was contrary to the record.
The Education Officer acted irresponsibly by interchanging approvals without verifying the vacancy, reservation, or participation of the candidates in the respective selection processes.
The Court emphasized that approval must correspond to a valid appointment, which in turn must align with the selection process, vacancy, and reservation prescribed in the advertisement.
The interchange of approvals had sweeping consequences, including the petitioner’s declaration as surplus and denial of absorption, while Respondent no.7 enjoyed salary grants and absorption.
The delay in filing the writ petition was not fatal, as the petitioner had consistently pursued her grievance through representations and earlier litigation.
The School Management’s conduct was abominable, as it disregarded the law and procedure to protect Respondent no.7’s interests.
The Verdict
The Court allowed Writ Petition No.5331 of 2018 and dismissed Writ Petition No.14300 of 2021, passing the following directions:
The order dated 28-03-2006 interchanging approvals and the communication dated 30-06-2017 were quashed and set aside.
The petitioner was deemed appointed on the partially aided VJNT post from 15-07-2005 and was eligible for all consequential benefits, including seniority, salary, and absorption.
The Education Officer was directed to pay the petitioner’s unpaid salary as per the prescribed pay scale within four weeks, adjusting amounts already paid.
Respondent no.7 was deemed appointed on the unreserved unaided post from 15-06-2005 and was bound by the consequences, including declaration as surplus.
The Education Officer was directed to recover salary grants issued to Respondent no.7.
Exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 each were imposed on the School Management (Respondent no.4) and the Education Officer (Respondent no.2), payable to the petitioner within four weeks. Non-compliance would result in recovery as land revenue.
The Zilla Parishad, Beed, was permitted to recover the cost from the concerned Education Officer and initiate departmental action against them.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Approval Must Strictly Correspond to Selection Process
Private school managements and education authorities must ensure that approvals for appointments strictly align with the selection process, including vacancy, reservation, and participation of the candidate.
Interchange of approvals or appointments without legal basis is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Consequences of Illegal Acts
Erroneous approvals can lead to severe consequences, including recovery of salary grants, imposition of costs, and departmental action against responsible officers.
Courts will not condone illegalities even if delayed, especially when the aggrieved party has consistently pursued their rights.
Duty of Education Authorities
Education Officers must verify appointments against the selection process, vacancy, and reservation before granting approvals.
Failure to apply due diligence can result in personal liability, including costs and departmental action.
