Synopsis

Two writ petitions were filed by the management of a primary school challenging two separate orders of the School Tribunal. The first Tribunal order (2007) set aside the termination of a teacher on the ground that the disciplinary inquiry was conducted with prejudice and in violation of natural justice; it directed reinstatement with full back wages and further directed the Education Officer to deduct the back wages from the management’s grants if not paid. The second Tribunal order (2017) set aside an “otherwise termination” (where the teacher was not allowed to join duty after reinstatement) and again directed reinstatement with back wages. The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the Tribunal’s findings were based on evidence and that there was no perversity warranting interference under Article 227. The court also took serious note of the management’s continuous non‑compliance and the inaction of the education authorities, issuing directions for further affidavits and keeping contempt proceedings pending.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Coram: Gauri Godse, J.
Date: March 26, 2026
Core Law: Service Law – Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981; School Tribunal’s powers; Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Legal Framework

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rules governing disciplinary proceedings, termination, and the powers of the School Tribunal.

• Constitution of India: Article 227 – supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over subordinate courts and tribunals; scope of interference limited to patent perversity, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice.

• Relevant Precedents:
  Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil – scope of Article 227.
  Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka – issue of provocation as a ground for interference; distinguished.
  Ahilyabai Holkar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Venkatrao Mane – scope of tribunal’s interference with inquiry findings.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.