5 min readNew DelhiAug 1, 2026 06:00 PM IST
The Bombay High Court recently directed the reinstatement of a woman teacher after declaring her termination illegal, holding that an employee cannot be made to “suffer” just because the school management failed to forward the proposal seeking approval of her appointment.
Rejecting the management’s contention that a shikshan sevak/assistant teacher had no legal protection, Justice Amit Borkar held that she was entitled to continuity of service, along with all consequential benefits, including seniority and pensionary benefits.
“If the management failed to perform its duty, then the employee should not suffer because of such lapse. Mere refusal of approval cannot by itself mean that the appointment was illegal,” the July 31 order read.
The high court was hearing the plea of a woman challenging her termination from September 1, 2012, after she was prevented from resuming duty at Seth G H High School.
‘Working at school since 2005’
The woman stated that she had been working in the said school since January 18, 2005. Though she had been working there continuously, the school deliberately gave her artificial breaks in service, she said.
Justice Amit Borkar noted that the main dispute was about what protection a shikshan sevak gets under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Regulation Act.
She claimed that she continued to work because the school authorities orally assured her that as soon as a regular post became available, she would be appointed and confirmed as a shikshan sevak (assistant teacher).
Subsequently, on December 22, 2010, the school published an advertisement in the daily newspaper inviting applications for the post of shikshan sevak. She claimed that she got selected for the role after completion of the selection process in January 2011.
Story continues below this ad
According to the petitioner, the appointment was made against a sanctioned post which had become vacant in June 2010 on account of the retirement of another employee. However, despite the availability of the sanctioned vacancy, she claimed that the said authorities did not discharge their obligation of forwarding a proposal for approval of her appointment. As a result, on January 21, 2012, the education inspector declined to approve the petitioner’s appointment.
She added that further, the headmistress of the said school orally informed her not to report for duty from September 2012 onwards, without issuing any written order or mentioning any reason for preventing her from resuming her duties. Aggrieved, the petitioner sent a written representation on September 14, 2012, but it was rejected.
Later, the school tribunal partly allowed her appeal in January 2015 but refused reinstatement. The high court then remanded the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration. However, on January 12, 2016, the tribunal again denied her reinstatement, following which she approached the high court.
‘Right to reinstatement’
The women’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, argued that the school tribunal failed to properly consider the petitioner’s right to the relief of reinstatement. The lawyer added that at the time of termination, the petitioner was on the verge of completing three years of service as a shikshan sevak and, therefore, the management should have continued her either in the post on which she was working or in the sanctioned, vacant post.
Story continues below this ad
On the contrary, advocate Himanshu Kode, representing the management, submitted that the only issue which was argued before the school tribunal was with regard to the minority status of the management. According to him, the petitioner had not attained the status of an assistant teacher on probation, as she was still serving as a shikshan sevak.
He submitted that such status could be acquired only after successful completion of three years of service as a shikshan sevak and, since she had not completed that period, she could not claim the protection.
HC’s directions
The high court noted that the main dispute is about what protection a shikshan sevak gets under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Noting that the management has never defended the termination by saying that an objective assessment of the petitioner’s work or behaviour was conducted, and she was found unsuitable, the court found that the stand taken by the management throughout has been that there was no vacancy.
“On the other hand, the education inspector recorded that according to official records one vacancy was available,” it added.
Story continues below this ad
The high court directed the authority and the said school to submit an appropriate proposal to the competent education authority for approval of the petitioner’s appointment/reinstatement. It was further directed that the competent authority should consider and expeditiously decide the same on its merits and in accordance with law.
Justice Amit Borkar noted that the main dispute was about what protection a shikshan sevak gets under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Regulation Act.