Synopsis

The petitioners (educational management and school) challenged the order of the School Tribunal which had allowed appeals filed by respondent teachers, holding that their termination amounted to illegal termination from probationary service. The teachers had been appointed as Assistant Teachers in the school during 2005, but the management contended that the appointments were purely temporary and limited to the academic year. The School Tribunal treated the appointments as probationary and set aside the termination. The Bombay High Court quashed the Tribunal’s order, holding that the teachers failed to establish that their appointments were on probation. The court clarified that a temporary appointment against a permanent vacancy does not automatically become probationary; the burden lies on the employee to plead and prove that the temporary nature was a camouflage. The management’s decision to make a temporary appointment, if recorded with reasons, is entitled to weight. The court also laid down guidelines for the School Tribunal’s jurisdiction in such matters.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Justice Amit Borkar

Date of Judgment: 16th April 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No.2014 of 2008 (and connected matters)

Core Law: Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 5, 9; Service law – temporary vs probationary appointment

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) – Section 5 (filling of permanent vacancies), Section 9 (appeal to School Tribunal against termination)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – principles of burden of proof

• Service jurisprudence – temporary vs probationary appointment

Key legal principles applied

• Temporary appointment against a permanent vacancy is permissible: Under the Full Bench decision in Ramkrishna Chauhan, the management can make a temporary appointment even against a permanent vacancy for a limited duration, provided such arrangement is bona fide and warranted by circumstances.

• No presumption that appointment against permanent vacancy is probationary: The nature of the appointment is determined by the terms of the appointment order and the intention of the parties, not merely by the fact that the vacancy is permanent. The employee bears the burden to show that the label “temporary” was a camouflage.

• Burden of proof on employee challenging temporary appointment: To succeed before the School Tribunal, the employee must plead with specificity that the temporary appointment was a device to circumvent statutory protections, that the management repeatedly resorted to temporary appointments, or that the decision was colourable. Mere satisfactory service does not transform a temporary appointment into a probationary one.

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