Upholding the reinstatement of a school teacher, the Bombay high court has held that it is the management and not the school committee which has the powers to terminate the services of an employee.
Justice Nishita Mhatre passed the judgment on an appeal filed by Deccan Education Society challenging the order of the presiding officer, School Tribunal, Pune, reinstating assistant teacher Shubhangi Bhagat with continuity of service and full back-wages from August 1, 2000. She was terminated when her two-year probation ended.
Bhagat approached the tribunal alleging she was terminated despite sufficient workload. The school countered that there was a decline in the number of students and since she was the junior-most teacher, she was retrenched. The tribunal upheld Bhagat’s contention that she would have to be treated as a permanent employee, and that procedure under rule 26 of the Maharastra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules were breached.
It held that since she was a probationer and her appointment being against a permanent vacancy, she could not be considered a temporary employee. It also concluded that the order of termination was illegal since it was not issued by the management but on the basis of a resolution passed by the school committee. The order was signed by the headmistress.
The school moved court contending that since the school committee appointed her, it had implicit power to remove her from service. Justice Mhatre noted that MEPS rules define the school committee as comprising of the chairman (president of the society or trust) or his nominee and three members nominated by the governing body, one member from amongst permanent teachers and one from the non-teaching staff. The headmaster is its ex-officio secretary. One of its functions is to appoint teaching and non-teaching staff, except the head of the school.
Thus, the school committee is not the “management” of the school as defined under MEPS rules, justice Mhatre noted. “The school committee cannot be equated with the management of a school because it is not the body of persons which administers or runs the school,” she added.
HC has also earlier held that the school committee cannot be equated with the management of a school and the power to terminate is reposed only on the “management” under the Rules. Concluding that the termination is illegal, the judge dismissed the case.
