WP 66-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 66 OF 2023

Shikshan Vikas Samooh

A registered Society / Trust

Having office at Maratha High School,

Shivram Amritvar Marg, Worli,

Mumbai 400013. ... Petitioner.

Versus

1.Mrs. Roshani B. Rane

Residing at 149/8, Amrutlabh Bldg.,

2

nd

Floor, 6

th

Lane, Hindu Colony, Dadar,

Mumbai 400 014.

2.The Deputy Director of Education,

Mumbai Region, Jawahar Bal Bhavan,

Netaji Subhash Road, Charni Road,

Mumbai 400 004.

3.The Education Inspector,

Mumbai South Zone,

E-Vita, Impress Bldg., G. D.

Ambekar Road, Parel Village, Parel,

Mumbai 400 012.

4.Mrs. Leena Manoj

Head Teacher at

Shikshan Vikas Samooha's, SVS English-

School, Worli, Mumbai 400 013. … Respondents.

—————

Mr. A.S. Peerzada, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. C. R. Sadasivan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent-State.

—————

sa_mandawgad 1 of 21 2026:BHC-AS:30888

WP 66-2023.doc

Coram:Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Reserved on : July 03, 2026

Pronounced on: July 28, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent and taken

up for final hearing.

2.The present Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, impugns the judgment dated 9

th

January,

2020 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.05 of 2019

directing the reinstatement of Respondent No.1 to her post as

“Head” in Secondary Section of the Petitioner-School with

continuity in service with full back wages and consequential

benefits.

3.The Petition pleads that the Petitioner is running a non-aided

english medium school, which school is recognised as private school

under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private

Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the

“MEPS Act”), and the service conditions of the staff and the

teaching faculty is governed by the provisions made under the

MEPS Act and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the “MEPS Rules”). It

sa_mandawgad 2 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

is pleaded that the Respondent No.1 is the Assistant Teacher

employed by the Petitioner in its SVS English School situated at

Worli, Mumbai. As per the terms and conditions of the permission

granted for starting the english medium school, the appointment

of the Headmaster is subject to the approval of the concerned

Inspector/Education Officer. It is pleaded that the Respondent No.

1 while seeking employment with the Petitioner misrepresented

about her experience as Assistant Teacher without submitting any

documentary evidence and based on such false representation of

total experience of 11 years, she was appointed as a Head Teacher

and issued the letter of appointment to that effect on 31

st

July,

2014.

4.It is pleaded that the Respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Director of

Education refused to grant approval on the ground that the

Respondent No.1 is not confirmed Assistant Teacher having

completed five years of teaching experience and therefore the

Petitioner was constrained to issue a letter of appointment dated

31

st

July, 2014 appointing the Respondent No.1 as Assistant

Teacher with effect from 1

st

August, 2014, for which approval was

granted by the Education Inspector, which appointment was

accepted by Respondent No.1 by signing the appointment letter. It

sa_mandawgad 3 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

is pleaded that in view of Rule 3 of MEPS Rules, the Respondent

No.1’s appointment as Head Teacher was not approved due to lack

of qualification, as she failed to establish that she has experience of

11 years, when she had completed service of 4 years only with the

Petitioner’s school as Assistant Teacher. The Respondent No.3 had

granted signing authority to Respondent No.1 from time to time till

filling of post of Head Master.

5. The Respondent No.1 had graduated in arts stream with

economics subject in 1997 and thereafter obtained graduation in

history subject in the year 2013 and for B.Ed. her subjects were

English and History. She was therefore not qualified to be

appointed to the post of Headmistress in the year 2015. The

Respondent No.3 approved the appointment of the Respondent

No.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher vide letter dated 22

nd

October, 2015 with effect from 1

st

August, 2014.

6.It is pleaded that on 3

rd

October, 2018, as the Respondent

No.1 was not qualified to be appointed as Head Teacher under the

statutory rules, a communication dated 3

rd

October, 2018 was

issued informing her that her appointment as Head Teacher is

discontinued and that she has been appointed as Assistant Teacher

with effect from 5

th

September, 2018. Respondent No.1 instead of

sa_mandawgad 4 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

obeying the order went on unauthorised leave from 4

th

October,

2019 and failed to report for her duty despite the Petitioner

communicating with her on 29

th

December, 2018 and 31

st

January,

2019.

7.The Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit-in-reply

submitting that by virtue of qualification of B.A.B.Ed., she was fully

qualified for appointment to the post of “Head” of the school. On

23

rd

April, 2013, the Petitioner-Management had published an

advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications for several

posts and the first post which was advertised was of Principal for

secondary school, in response to which, the Respondent No.1

applied, was interviewed and duly selected by the selection

committee and came to be appointed vide appointment order

dated 17

th

July, 2014. The copies of the advertisement and the

letter dated 17

th

July, 2014 is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. It is

stated that the first letter of appointment as Principal is not

annexed to the petition. It was intimated by the first appointment

order that detailed appointment letter will be given after joining

the post.

8.It is contended that the Petitioner submitted the proposal

for approval of the Respondent No.3 as Principal but since the

sa_mandawgad 5 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

appointment was by direct recruitment, the Education Inspector

called upon the Petitioner to first obtain approval of Assistant

Teacher and thereafter submit approval as Headmistress and to

obtain no objection certificate from the other teachers in the

school which was done by the Petitioner by circular dated 8

th

June,

2015. By letter dated 27

th

October, 2015, the Education Inspector

granted approval to the Respondent No.1 as Assistant Teacher and

instead of submitting the proposal for approval as Principal, the

Petitioner sent proposals for signing authority from 2016 till 2018.

It is submitted that the communication of 3

rd

October, 2018 vaguely

records that in view of the directions issued by the Education

Inspector, the Respondent No.1 cannot continue as Head Teacher

and discontinued the services as Head Teacher, which was

challenged before the School Tribunal.

9.Mr. Peerzada, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

would point out the letter of appointment of 31

st

July, 2014

appointing the Respondent No.1 as Head Teacher and the order of

appointment of the same date of 31

st

July, 2014 appointing the

Respondent No.1 as Assistant Teacher. He would further point out

the endorsement of the Respondent No.1 accepting her

appointment as Assistant Teacher. He would further point out to

sa_mandawgad 6 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

the communication dated 1

st

February, 2018 by the Education

Inspector permitting the Respondent No.1 to sign certain

documents till appointment of Principal and would point out that

the said communication describes the Respondent No.1 as

Assistant Teacher.

10.He would further submit that before the School Tribunal, the

Education Inspector had filed his reply stating that the Respondent

No.1 was granted approval as Assistant Teacher on 1

st

August, 2014

and as there was no teacher available fulfilling the qualification for

the post of Principal, the Respondent No.1 was granted the

authority to sign the documents for period of six months at a

stretch. He would further point out that the affidavit states that as

there was no teacher available fulfilling the qualification as well as

the experience for being appointed as a Principal, no approval was

given by the education department. He submits that the Tribunal

has erroneously recorded that there is no affidavit-in-reply filed by

the Education Inspector.

11.He would further submit that there was no consent given by

the education department for appointment of the Respondent

No.1 as Principal and the confirmation was given to the post of

Assistant Teacher by pointing out the document of 27

th

October,

sa_mandawgad 7 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

2015. He would further submit that School Tribunal has granted her

continuity of service with full back wages without any evidence on

part of the Respondent No.1 that she was not gainfully employed.

He submits that as Respondent No.1 was never appointed as

Principal, there is no question of her termination as Principal and

reduction of her rank to Assistant Teacher.

12.Per contra, Mr. Sadasivan, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent No.1 would point out the advertisement as well as the

communication of 17

th

July, 2014 appointing the Respondent No.1

as Principal of the school. He would submit that, having been validly

appointed, the approval of the Education Department will not

vitiate the appointment drawing support from the Full Bench

decision of this Court in the case of St. Ulai High School, through

its Principal and Anr. vs. Shri Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh

and Anr.

1

He submits that the Respondent No.1 was duly qualified

as she had obtained graduation in B.A. in Economics in the year

1997 and thereafter, B.A. with subject History in the year 2013 and

in B.Ed. with subjects English and History.

13.Rival contentions now fall for determination:

14.By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has recorded that

12007 (109) BOM. L.R. 60

sa_mandawgad 8 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

the appeal was heard ex parte against the Respondent No.3, who

was the newly appointed as Head Teacher and Respondent No 5

Deputy Director of Education.

15.This Court is informed that Respondent No 3 has left the

services and would therefore would not be affected by the

outcome of the present proceedings.

16.The Tribunal records that the Respondent No.5-Deputy

Director of Education was duly served with the notice of the Appeal

but he did not appear before the Tribunal to answer the appeal.

This observation is assailed by Mr. Peerzada as erroneous by

contending that Education Inspector had filed his reply affidavit.

Before the Tribunal, the Deputy Director of Education was arrayed

as Respondent No 4 and the Education Inspector was arrayed as

Respondent No 5. The reply Affidavit was filed by Education

Inspector.

17.The observation that the Respondent No.5 Deputy Director

of Education has not appeared before the Tribunal to answer the

Appeal is an typographical error in mentioning the respondent

number. Paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment records that the

Education Department did not prefer to appear to argue the appeal

and the Tribunal has referred to the reply affidavit of Education

sa_mandawgad 9 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

Inspector in the judgment.

18.The appeal was therefore heard ex parte only against the

Respondent No.3 and the Deputy Director of Education and not

against the Education Inspector.

19.The issue before the Tribunal was the termination of

Respondent No.1’s services as Principal and reduction of her rank

as Assistant Teacher. The Tribunal noted the statutory provisions

and decision in case of Anna Manikrao Pethe vs. Presiding Officer,

School Tribunal

2

which had held that the issues which arise in a

challenge to an act of termination is whether the appointment of

the concerned teacher was made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act

and Rules thereunder and whether such an appointment has been

approved by the Education Officer. The Tribunal further noted the

decision of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of St.

Ulai High School, through its Principal and Anr. vs. Shri

Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh and Anr. (supra), which has held

that neither the MEPS Act nor the Rules framed thereunder

mandate the grant of approval by the Education Officer as a

condition precedent to a valid order of appointment and the

requirement of approval relates to disbursal of grant-in-aid which is

21997 (3) MhLJ 697

sa_mandawgad 10 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

a matter between the management and the State and want of

approval will not invalidate an order of appointment and in fact

holds that the observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the

case of Anna Manikrao Pethe vs. Presiding Officer, School

Tribunal (supra), that the appeal is not maintainable before the

Tribunal at the behest of an employee whose appointment has not

been approved, do not reflect the correct position in law and are

overruled.

20.The Tribunal framed the necessary issue as regards the

qualification and appointment of the Respondent No.1 and the act

of termination whether valid. In so far as appointment of

Respondent No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal noted the

advertisement dated 23

rd

April, 2014, letter of appointment of

Respondent No.1 as Principal dated 17

th

July, 2014 and another

appointment order appointing Respondent No.1 as Head Teacher.

On the basis of documents on record, the Tribunal held that the

Respondent No.1 was appointed as Principal in accordance with the

procedure. In so far as the qualification of Respondent No.1 is

concerned, it held that Respondent No.1 was duly qualified being

B.A B.Ed. On the aspect of required experience, the Tribunal held

that the Petitioner has itself recorded about 11 years experience of

sa_mandawgad 11 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

the Respondent No.1. It further observed that the Department

appears to have considered her appointment by relaxing the

teaching experience.

21.The decision of Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Ulai High

School, through its Principal and Anr. vs. Shri Devendraprasad

Jagannath Singh and Anr. (supra), settles the legal position that

approval of the education department is no longer the sine qua non

for valid appointment. The condition of obtaining prior approval of

the Education Inspector to the appointment of Head master set out

in the permission granted for starting the english medium cannot

override the position of law settled by the Hon’ble Full Bench of

this Court.

22.Much dispute has been created by the Petitioner as to the

post to which the Respondent No.1 was appointed. The Petitioner

has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed

various documents. The Petitioner did not produce the copy of

advertisement, the copy of first appointment order of 17

th

July,

2014, the circular of 8

th

June, 2015 calling for no objection of other

teachers. The documents on record will indicate the shifting stand

adopted by the Petitioner as regards the post of Respondent No.1.

The first post advertised in the advertisement published by the

sa_mandawgad 12 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

Petitioner is for Principal for secondary section, the appointment

letter of 17

th

July, 2014 issued to the Respondent No.1 mentions

the interview held on 15

th

July, 2014 and appointment as Principal

of secondary section and direction to join the duties from 1

st

August, 2014. On 8

th

June, 2015, the Petitioner school issues a

circular mentioning about the 11 years experience of Respondent

No.1 as Assistant Teacher and her appointment as Principal on 1

st

August, 2014 and seeks No objection from the other teachers,

which was duly given. The communication of 3

rd

October, 2018,

which was subject matter of challenge states about discontinuation

of Respondent No.1 as Head Teacher and her appointment as

Assistant Teacher w.e.f 5

th

September, 2018.

23. The documents would disclose that the Petitioner had

appointed the Respondent No.1 as Principal w.e.f 1

st

August, 2014

and the discontinuation as Principal was by the communication of

3

rd

October, 2018. Though the said communication speaks of

Respondent No.1 ‘s appointment as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 5

th

September, 2018, the case put up by the Petitioner is that the

Respondent No.1 was never appointed as Principal as she was not

duly qualified and her appointment was as Assistant Teacher by

relying on the appointment letter of 31

st

July, 2014. On record are

sa_mandawgad 13 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

two appointment orders of 31

st

July, 2014 one for post of Head

Teacher and the other for appointment to the post of Assistant

Teacher. The pleading in the Petition is that as no approval was

granted by Respondent No 2 to the appointment as Principal, the

Respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher. The said

communication of Respondent No 2 is not on record and no

particulars are given. It is difficult to accept that the appointment

letter for Head Teacher was issued on 31

st

July, 2014 and

immediately on the same date, the appointment letter as Assistant

Teacher was issued. The reliance placed on the order of 31

st

July,

2014 appointing the Respondent No.1 as Assistant Teacher cannot

be accepted for the reason that the said order of appointment

makes a reference to the application of 15

th

July, 2015, whereas the

order was issued on 31

st

July, 2014. It is also not possible to accept

the Respondent No.1’s endorsement at the bottom of the

appointment order as acceptance of her appointment as Assistant

Teacher, as there are several blanks in the document as regards the

date of application, the designation, the salary as well as the term

and the date which is not typed and is filled in hand. It appears that

the signature of the Respondent No.1 was obtained and thereafter

the blanks were filled to show her appointment as Assistant

sa_mandawgad 14 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

Teacher.

24.The Respondent No.1 has stated that the Petitioner was

called upon to first seek approval as Assistant Teacher and

thereafter to submit approval for Headmistress and the document

appears to have been created for the said purpose. Considering the

settled position in law, the approval of Education Inspector is

immaterial for valid appointment. The Respondent No.1’s

appointment was on the post of Principal evidenced from her

appointment order of 17

th

July, 2014. It appears that in accordance

with directions of Education Inspector, Respondent No.1’s

appointment was shown as Assistant Teacher and the Petitioner is

now seeking to take advantage of the said fact to contend that

Respondent No.1’s appointment was since inception as Assistant

Teacher.

25.In the event, the Respondent No.1 was appointed as

Assistant Teacher on 31

st

July, 2014, there was no requirement of

obtaining NOC of other teachers on 8

th

June, 2015 and no necessity

of mentioning about the appointment of Respondent No.1 as

Assistant Teacher w.e.f 5

th

September, 2018 in the communication

of 3

rd

October, 2018.

26.The documents on record were rightly considered by the

sa_mandawgad 15 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

Tribunal to hold that the Respondent No.1 was appointed to the

post of Principal. Coming next to the qualification of the

Respondent No.1, Section 5 of the MEPS Act imposes an obligation

on the management of private school to fill in every permanent

vacancy by the appointment of a person duly qualified to fill such

vacancy. Rule 3 of the MEPS Rules sets out the qualification and

appointment and Head and reads as under:

“3.Qualifications and appointment of Head.

(1)A person to be appointed as the Head;

(a)of a school having Standards I to VIII as per the norms

and the standards provided in the Schedule under the

heading ‘Norms and Standards for a School’ appended to

the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education

Act, 2009 (35 of 2009):

Provided that, the senior most teacher who has not

put less than five years of service, shall be appointed as

the head of the primary school.

(b)of a secondary school including night school or a Junior

College of Education shall be a graduate possessing

Bachelor's degree in teaching or education of a statutory

University or any other qualification recognised by

Government as equivalent thereto and possessing not

less than five years' total full-time teaching experience

after graduation in a secondary school or a Junior

College of Education out of which at least two years'

experience shall be after acquiring Bachelor's degree in

teaching or education:

Provided that, in the case of a person to be appointed as the

Head of a night secondary school;

(I)he shall not be the one who is holding the post of the

Head or Assistant Head of a day school, and

(ii)the experience laid down in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) may

be as a part-time teacher.

(2)In the case of appointment to the post of Head of a secondary

sa_mandawgad 16 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

school including night school or a Junior College of Education

if there is no person with the teaching experience mentioned

in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) available on the staff of the school

or if the qualified persons, though available and eligible,

relinquish their claims for the post of Head and if a

Management desires to appoint a person, from the teaching

staff of the school who does not possess the requisite

teaching experience mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), it

shall apply to the Deputy Director for relaxing the

requirement. The Deputy Director may, after recording

reasons in writing, grant or refuse such relaxation. In such

cases, the appointment shall not be made without obtaining

the previous approval of the Deputy Director.

Note: In the case of a graduate teacher already in service in a

secondary school or Junior College of Education for more

than fifteen years on the 1st June 1963, the Deputy Director

shall relax the requisite qualifications for appointment of such

teacher as a Head.

(3)…...

(4)…..

(5)……

(6)…….

27.The qualification which is prescribed in Rule 3 in respect of

secondary school is of the candidate being a graduate possessing

bachelors degree in teaching or education of statutory University

and possessing the experience of not less than 5 year total full time

teaching experience after graduation in a secondary school. In the

present case, the Respondent No.1’s academic qualification is B.A.

B.Ed. which satisfies the criteria under Rule 3 of MEPS Rules.

Insofar as the experience is concerned, Rule 3 requires not less

than 5 years total full time teaching experience after graduation.

The pleading in the petition is that Respondent No.1 by seeking

sa_mandawgad 17 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

employment in the Petitioner-school misrepresented about her

experience as Assistant Teacher of 11 years.

28.The Respondent No.1 ‘s bio-data is placed on record which

sets out the experience of Respondent No.1 which is more than 5

years. The Petitioner had issued the appointment order of 17

th

July,

2014 appointing the Respondent No.1 as Head Teacher/Principal.

Once the appointment order is issued, it is implied that the

Petitioner appointed the Respondent No.1 as she fulfilled the

requisite criteria. The pleading in the Petition is that approval was

not granted as Respondent No.1 is not confirmed Assistant Teacher

having completed 5 years of teaching experience. The said

communication is not placed on record. The communication of 3

rd

October, 2018 does not mention about the Respondent No.1 not

possessing the requisite experience of 5 years or having mis-

represented about her experience, which contention is missing

from pre-litigation correspondence.

29. The Petitioner itself by the circular of 8

th

June, 2015

acknowledges the advertisement issued for the post of the

Principal and the selection of the Respondent No.1 on 1

st

August,

2014 to the post of Principal. It further acknowledges the

experience of 11 years of the Respondent No.1 as Assistant

Teacher and seeks no objection of the other teachers which was

sa_mandawgad 18 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

given. Considering that the Petitioner-Management was aware of

the qualifying criteria for appointment of Principal and had

accordingly followed the due procedure by issuing the

advertisement and selecting the Respondent No.1 after the

interview, it is too late in the day to thereafter turn back to plead

that the Respondent No.1 did not have the experience for Principal

as required under Rule 3 of the MEPS Rules.

30.After having appointed the Respondent No.1 as the Principal

of the school, there was no need for the Petitioner management to

submit a proposal for approval of the Respondent No.1 on 19

th

October, 2015 as Assistant Teacher. There is no explanation as to

why the Petitioner-management did not send the proposal of the

Respondent No.1 for approval as Principal after obtaining the no

objection on 8

th

June, 2015. In any event, even if there is no

approval which has been granted, as the appointment of the

Respondent No.1 was after following due procedure, by publishing

advertisement, inviting applications and after selection through a

selection committee, the non grant of the approval by the

Education Inspector will not vitiate the appointment.

31.The approval claimed to already having been granted by the

Education Officer to Respondent No.1’s appointment as Assistant

Teacher runs contrary to the contents of the communication of 3

rd

sa_mandawgad 19 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

October, 2018 whereby the Petitioner decided to appoint the

Respondent No.1 as Assistant Teacher and discontinue her services

as Head Teacher. The communication of 3

rd

October, 2018 would in

fact indicate that the Respondent no.1 continued as Principal of the

school till that date. Though the letter of appointment and the

order of 3

rd

October, 2018 describes the Respondent No.1 as Head

Teacher, there is no post as Head Teacher and the advertisement

was issued for post of Principal and the Respondent No.1 was

appointed as such.

32.The order of 3

rd

October, 2018 constitutes termination of the

services of the Respondent No.1 as Principal which was rightly

assailed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the

decision in the case of St. Ulai High School, through its Principal

and Anr. vs. Shri Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh and Anr.

(surpa) that the services cannot be terminated for want of

approval. The order of 3

rd

October, 2018 terminates the services in

view of the directions issued by the Education Inspector which

directions are not placed on record. The Tribunal has rightly noted

that the impugned order reveals the confused stand of the

Petitioner-management. The Petitioner management has no clarity

and has been constantly shifting stands. The Tribunal has therefore

rightly held that the consequence of reducing the Respondent No.1

sa_mandawgad 20 of 21

WP 66-2023.doc

from the rank of Head to the Assistant Teacher amounts to

reduction in rank which constitutes a major penalty under Rule 31

of the MEPS Rules and there is no procedure followed for inquiry.

33.The Trial Court has therefore rightly passed the impugned

order. Though it is sought to be contended by Mr. Peerzada that

there is nothing on record to show that the Respondent No.1 was

not gainfully employed, it is own case of the Petitioner that there

was never any appointment as Head Teacher/Principal and

consequently no termination as Head Teacher and that the

Respondent No.1 was always appointed as an Assistant Teacher.

34.In event, there is any unauthorised absence by the

Respondent No.1, the Petitioner can consider the unauthorised

absence in accordance with the governing service rules, however,

there can be no fault found in the impugned order setting aside the

the order of 3

rd

October, 2018 and directing reinstatement with

continuity of service with full back wages.

35.In light of the above, there is no need for interference with

the impugned order under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Resultantly, petition fails and stands dismissed. Rule stands

discharged.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

sa_mandawgad 21 of 21