Bombay High Court on Temporary Appointment and Abandonment of Service.

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Surya Education Society against the order of the Single Judge which had reinstated Respondent No.1 (Girija Pandey) with full back wages. The Court held that Respondent No.1 was appointed on a temporary basis without an appointment letter or advertisement, and had abandoned her service in December 1991. As the statutory procedure under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service Regulation) Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and MEPS Rules, 1981 was not followed, the reinstatement and back wages were not legally justified. The impugned order of the Single Judge was therefore quashed and set aside.

Background:

1. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a temporary teacher on 12 June 1989 in a fully government-aided school run by Surya Education Society.
2. She suffered from illness (jaundice) and abandoned her service on 14 December 1991 without informing the school.
3. The school issued letters on 27 Dec 1991, 6 Jan 1992, and 27 Jan 1992, asking her to resume duty; she did not respond.
4. Respondent later submitted medical certificates and obtained an experience certificate claiming her termination was effective on 30 April 1992. The school disputed both documents.
5. Respondent filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9(a) of the MEPS Act, which was dismissed on 18 Dec 1996 for delay and on the ground of temporary appointment.
6. Respondent approached the High Court through WP 3349/1998, which was allowed by the Single Judge on 27 Sept 2007, granting reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
7. The school filed LPA 101/2008 challenging this order.

Court’s Observations:

1. Temporary vs. Permanent Appointment: Respondent was never appointed to a permanent vacancy and no appointment letter was issued, which is mandatory under Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules.
2. Abandonment of Service: Respondent had abandoned her service in December 1991 and did not seek leave within 7 days, which constitutes abandonment under Rule 16(2) of MEPS Rules.
3. Legal Procedure: Being a fully aided school, all appointments must comply with statutory procedure; deviation renders the appointment invalid.
4. Section 5(2) & 5(4) of MEPS Act: Respondent cannot claim confirmation or benefit of probation as her appointment was temporary and not against a clear permanent vacancy.
5. Conduct of Respondent: Lack of response to school letters and absence of pursuit of interim proceedings on back wages indicated disinterest in employment.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. MEPS Act, 1977 – Section 5 (Appointment to permanent vacancies, probation, confirmation).
2. MEPS Rules, 1981 – Rule 9 (Appointment procedure, advertisement, issuance of appointment letter), Rule 16 (Leave and abandonment).

Decision:

1. Letters Patent Appeal allowed.
2. Impugned Single Judge order dated 27 September 2007 quashed and set aside.
3. Civil Applications No. 116 of 2008 & 380 of 2009 disposed of.
4. No costs.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:50785-DB

Case: Surya Education Society & Ors. v. Girija Pandey & Ors.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Coram: G.S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.

Date of Decision: 24 November 2025

Letters Patent Appeal No.: 101 of 2008

Writ Petition No.: 3349 of 1998