Case at a Glance
A School Tribunal had ordered an Urdu primary school in Ahmednagar to reinstate a woman as Shikshan Sevak with continuity and 50% back-wages, holding that her oral termination in 2015 was illegal. The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench found that her claimed 2013 appointment did not meet the recruitment rules: the advertisement gave less than the required 15 days, she obtained her D.Ed. only after it was published, the orders were issued by the Secretary rather than the School Committee, and the advertisement and seniority list appeared fabricated. The Tribunal’s judgment was quashed and her appeal dismissed.
The petitioner, a minority educational trust, runs Ideal Urdu Primary School, Ahmednagar, an unaided institution. Respondent No. 4 claimed that, after an advertisement published on 15 August 2013 in a newspaper and an interview on 20 August 2013, she was appointed Shikshan Sevak on 21 August 2013. Two appointment orders, one in English and one in Marathi, bore that date. She went on leave from 7 August 2014, submitted a leave application dated 1 July 2015, and said that when she tried to rejoin on 1 August 2015 she was orally terminated.
The management’s case was that she had never been recruited, and that the advertisement, appointment orders and seniority list were fabricated. On 13 September 2021 the School Tribunal, Solapur (Appeal No. 5 of 2018) quashed the termination and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back-wages. The management challenged that order before the High Court. The Education Officer relied on the Principal Bench’s recent decision in Smt. Manthana Ramdas Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (decided 21 October 2026).
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the respondent validly appointed as a teacher under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act and Rules, so that her oral termination could be held illegal and reinstatement ordered?
How the appointment fell apart
Writing for the Bench, Justice Jitendra Jain noted that the newspaper was not shown to have wide circulation in Ahmednagar, and the gap between the advertisement on 15 August and the appointment on 21 August was less than the 15 days required by Rule 9(2B) of the MEPS Rules; the Court held the advertisement to be fabricated. The respondent cleared her D.Ed. on 20 August 2013, after the advertisement, whereas “the requisite qualification has to be possessed on the date when the advertisement is published.” The appointment orders were issued by the Secretary and not by the School Committee as required by Rule 9(2) and Schedule A, and two orders in different languages on the same day were suspicious. Since “a person cannot be called upon to prove negative”, the burden lay on the respondent to prove her appointment, and she failed to discharge it.
The Court also found the leave application irregular, as it was addressed to the Education Officer rather than the Headmaster and was submitted about a year after leave began, contrary to Rule 16. Her name was missing from the main side of the seniority list and appeared only on the reverse, with a differing signature, leading the Court to say the list “appears to be a fabricated document”. As an unaided school, the post would in any case have been Assistant Teacher, not Shikshan Sevak; no salary records or muster roll were produced; and the Tribunal’s findings that the management did not dispute the appointment and on Sections 4(6) and 5 of the MEPS Act were perverse. Following Manthana Ramdas Thakur, appointments contrary to Rule 9 were held illegal.
What the Court Actually Held
- The respondent’s claimed appointment did not comply with Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules, 1981, and the advertisement and seniority list relied on were found to be fabricated.
- A candidate must hold the required qualification on the date the advertisement is published.
- The burden of proving a valid appointment lay on the teacher claiming it, not on the management to prove a negative.
- The writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (A): the School Tribunal’s judgment dated 13 September 2021 was quashed and Appeal No. 5 of 2018 dismissed; rule made absolute.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows School Tribunal orders of reinstatement will not survive where the underlying appointment itself is not proved.
- It reinforces strict compliance with recruitment rules for private school teachers in Maharashtra.
- It clarifies that eligibility is judged on the date of the advertisement, not the interview or appointment.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Teachers
- Hold the required qualification before the recruitment advertisement is published.
- Ensure your appointment is made by the competent authority (the School Committee) after a properly advertised process.
- Apply for leave to the Headmaster in time; delayed or misdirected applications can undermine your case.
For Managements and Counsel
- Specifically deny a disputed appointment in the written statement and point to defects under Rule 9.
- Cite Manthana Ramdas Thakur and this judgment against appointments made in breach of Rule 9.
- Highlight missing salary records, muster rolls and approval when challenging reinstatement claims.
Key Takeaways
- Appointments of private school teachers contrary to Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules are illegal.
- Qualification must exist on the date of the advertisement.
- The person asserting an appointment must prove it; the employer cannot be asked to prove a negative.
- The Tribunal’s reinstatement order with 50% back-wages was quashed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a teacher be reinstated if her appointment was not as per the recruitment rules?
In this case, no. The Bombay High Court held that since the appointment did not comply with Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules and the supporting documents appeared fabricated, the School Tribunal’s reinstatement order could not stand.
What is the minimum advertisement period under Rule 9(2B)?
As noted in the judgment, at least 15 days were required between the advertisement and the appointment; here the gap was only six days.
Who must make the appointment in a private school under the MEPS Rules?
According to the judgment, the School Committee under Rule 9(2) and Schedule A; orders issued by the Secretary were held not to meet this requirement.
Conclusion
The decision demonstrates the High Court’s willingness to examine the foundations of an appointment before upholding a reinstatement order. Where the record shows a compressed timeline, a missing qualification and suspicious documents, the claim to the post itself fails.
Practical takeaway: In School Tribunal appeals, the teacher must first establish a valid appointment under Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules; managements should squarely deny and test the appointment documents at the earliest stage.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com