Bombay High Court on Temporary Appointment vs. Permanent Vacancy in Private Aided Schools.

The Bombay High Court allowed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the reinstatement of an employee by the Single Judge in a private aided school. The Court held that temporary appointment without an appointment letter or advertisement does not create a permanent vacancy under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). Since Respondent No.1 had abandoned her service without leave and had no valid appointment against a permanent vacancy, the Single Judge’s order granting reinstatement and back-wages was quashed and set aside.'

• The Appellant, Surya Education Society, ran a fully government-aided school funded entirely through government grants, which could be used solely for salaries of sanctioned staff.

• Respondent No.1, Girija Pandey, was appointed as a temporary teacher on 12 June 1989, though she contended she was appointed against a permanent vacancy.

• After joining, Respondent No.1 suffered jaundice and abandoned her service on 14 December 1991 without informing the school. Multiple letters by the school to resume duty went unanswered.

• Medical certificates submitted later were disputed by the school as not genuine.

• Respondent No.1 filed an appeal with the School Tribunal under Section 9(a) of the MEPS Act. The Tribunal dismissed her appeal on 18 December 1996, primarily due to delay and temporary nature of appointment.

• Respondent No.1 subsequently filed Writ Petition No. 3349/1998, which was allowed by the Single Judge on 27 September 2007, reinstating her with continuity of service and full back-wages.

• The Appellant Society/school challenged this decision via Letters Patent Appeal, contending that the Single Judge misinterpreted the law regarding temporary appointments and permanent vacancies.

• Section 5 of the MEPS Act requires appointments against clear permanent vacancies, with probation periods (2 years for permanent posts, 3 years for probationary assistant teachers).

• Appointment letters and advertisement of vacancies are mandatory for a valid appointment under the Act and MEPS Rules. Respondent No.1 did not receive an appointment letter, nor was her post advertised.

• The Single Judge misapplied Section 5(2) and 5(4), granting permanent status and back-wages to a temporary appointee who had abandoned service.

• Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules prescribes proper procedure for appointments, including application, interview, advertisement, and publication of selection, none of which were followed.

• Rule 16(2) & (3) clarify that non-permanent employees who fail to apply for leave within 7 days of absence are deemed to have abandoned service. Respondent No.1’s failure to respond confirmed abandonment.

• Respondent No.1’s conduct demonstrated lack of interest in service; interim back-wages were not justified.

• The Court emphasized that employment in a fully aided school is public employment, and appointments must strictly follow statutory procedure.

• Section 5, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 – Appointment against permanent vacancy, probation, and confirmation.

• Rule 9, MEPS Rules, 1981 – Procedure for appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff, advertisement, application, selection, and issuance of appointment letter.

• Rule 16, MEPS Rules – Leave, abandonment of service, and disciplinary action.

i. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27 September 2007 passed by the Single Judge is quashed and set aside.

ii. Civil Application No. 116 of 2008 and Civil Application No. 380 of 2009 are disposed of.

iii. No costs.

(Aarti Sathe, J.)

(G. S. Kulkarni, J.)

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:50787-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

Civil Applications: 116 of 2008; 380 of 2009