Supreme Court Awards Rs 10 Lakh to Teacher Who Couldn’t be Appointed Due to School’s Mistake

Recently, the  Supreme Court awarded Rs 10 Lakh to a teacher who couldn’t be appointed due to school’s mistake.

The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was dealing with the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court whereunder a Writ Petition filed by respondent no.1 praying inter alia for being appointed to the post of Shikshan Sevak in the appellant no.3-School was allowed and the appellants were directed to ensure that he is appointed to the subject post on or before 31st December 2009, in accordance with law.  

The case revolves around the appointment of respondent no.1 as a Peon in a school run by the appellant no.3-Society in 1991. Respondent no.1 later acquired qualifications for the post of Shikshan Sevak (teacher) and sought appointment to this position through representations to the appellant no.1, but his requests were allegedly not considered. 

Subsequently, when a vacancy for the position of Shikshan Sevak arose due to the retirement of another teacher, appellant no.1 issued an advertisement for the position in 2008. Respondent no.1 did not apply for this vacancy but challenged the appointment of another individual (respondent no.5) to the position through a writ petition. 

Respondent no.1’s appeal before the School Tribunal was dismissed. However, respondent no.1 approached the High Court through a writ petition, which was decided in his favor. 

Adarsh Kumar Pandey, counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has erred in allowing the Writ Petition filed by respondent no.1 for the reason that it failed to take into consideration the fact that respondent no.1 was given promotion from the post of a Peon (non-teaching staff) to the post of Shikshan Sevak, which is a teaching post which is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 

Vivek C. Solshe, counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the entire controversy has been set at rest on amendment of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, by including the post of Shikshan Sevak under the Act and casting an obligation on the management of Private Schools to fill up the said post by appointing a person suitable in the list of surplus persons maintained by the office of Education Inspector, Greater Bombay or the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, for absorption to the post.

Supreme Court observed that when a vacancy to the subject post arose on Mr. Dhakne superannuating in the year 2006, instead of approaching the Education Inspector/Education Officer/Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, being the office designated by the Director of Education for vacancies to be filled up by a suitable person available on the list of surplus persons maintained in that office, the appellants proceeded to issue an advertisement inviting applications from the public at large for filling up the subject post, thereby completely ignoring the claim of the respondent no.1 for being appointed to the subject post.

The bench stated that respondent no. 1, having acquired the necessary qualifications during their tenure with respondent no. 3-School, and as per the relevant Government Resolution (GR) incorporated in the Act of 1977, was permitted to be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak, even though they were initially part of the non-teaching staff. 

Also Read

Further the Supreme Court observed that regulations outlined in the GR, particularly dated 10th June 2005, clearly indicate that the onus was on the appellants to ensure that once a permanent vacancy for the post of Shikshan Sevak became available, a member of the non-teaching staff who had acquired the requisite educational qualifications should be appointed directly, without the need for the employee to make any representation for such appointment. Therefore, the appellants cannot argue that respondent no. 1, being part of the non-teaching staff, was not entitled to be considered for appointment to the said post.

In view of the above, the bench directed that the respondent no. 5 in the event the post of a Physical Education Teacher is vacant and available in any of the schools/colleges being run by the appellant no.1-Society, he shall be duly accommodated on the post of an Assistant Teacher there.

Case Title: Sant Bhagwan Baba Shikshan Mandal & Ors. v. Gunwant & Ors. 

Bench: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah 
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2225 OF 2011

Related Articles

Latest Articles