902.as.wp.5702.2014 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5702 OF 2014 Shri Vijay Uttam Kotwal … Petitioner Versus Shri Shivaji Maratha Society, Through Secretary and ors. … Respondents *** Mr. Vivekanand S. Tadke for the Petitioner. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude a/w Mr. Sumit Sonare for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. *** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 9 SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused record. 2. The Petitioner / employee is challenging the order dated 02.02.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Appeal No.47 of 2012. The Petitioner had filed the said Appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the Rules of 1981 made thereunder (‘the said Act’ and ‘the said Rules’ for short). The Appeal was filed challenging ‘otherwise termination’ dated 01.09.2012. 3. The Petitioner was appointed as a lecturer with effect from 01.10.2007 and was terminated on 01.09.2012. The Petitioner made representation to the Educational Institute. However, since there was no response, he filed the aforesaid Appeal. Vina Khadpe 1 VINA ARVIND KHADPE Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2026.09.09 18:40:52 +0530 902.as.wp.5702.2014 @.doc 4. According to the Petitioner, he was employed after following due procedure with an advertisement and he had completed necessary probationary period and was in continuous service till termination. According to the Petitioner his work and behaviour were satisfactory and his appointment was also approved and thus he was a permanent employee. Since on 01.09.2012, he was not permitted to sign the muster, the same amounts to otherwise termination. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent – Management did not follow the procedure and therefore termination is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated with backwages. 5. Respondent – Management filed their written statement contending inter alia that at the relevant time, the Management had only two divisions which were functioning with State grant-in-aid and three divisions on permanently non-grant basis. It contended that the Petitioner was appointed and serving on un-aided post. They contended that in the academic year 2012-2013 (during which, the alleged otherwise termination has taken place), there were no admissions for concerned divisions and the Management could not run the un-aided divisions for want of admissions and therefore the Petitioner’s services were no more required. The Management contended that the appointment of the Petitioner was always dependent on availability of teaching work-load. It contended and in the academic year 2012-2013, there was not a single admission for un-aided division and as such the Management was not in a position to give work-load to the Petitioner. The Management also contended that considering the qualification of the Petitioner for special category Vina Khadpe 2 902.as.wp.5702.2014 @.doc of College, it was not in a position to absorb the Petitioner elsewhere. 6. The Respondent – Deputy Director of Education, filed a written statement confirming that there are two aided and three permanently un-aided divisions in the Institute. It contended that during the concerned academic year, there were 39 admissions for the first year in the aided division and zero admissions in three un-aided divisions. This position was observed by the Education-Authority while approving the staff sanction. 7. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, allowed the appeal partly. Claim for reinstatement with back wages was dismissed and Respondent -Management was only directed to pay compensation equal to six months salary which was last drawn. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent – Management has placed on record a receipt dated 30.03.2013 indicating that the Petitioner has accepted six months salary as directed by the Tribunal. This aspect is not seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. A copy of the said receipt is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 9. In these circumstances, the Petitioner filed the present Petition. It was admitted on 04.04.2016. However, the record indicates that no interim relief was granted in the favour of the Petitioner. Hence, effectively, the Petitioner has not worked for the Respondent Institute since date of termination (01.09.2012) till today. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that pursuant to Vina Khadpe 3 902.as.wp.5702.2014 @.doc the provisions of Rule 26 of the said Rules, three months’ notice was necessary to be issued to the Petitioner and without prior permission of the Education Authority, the Petitioner could not have been removed under the retrenchment procedure provided. He submitted that the Petitioner could have been absorbed in some other school. He replied on the Judgment in the case of Bharat Education Society’s Junior College of Commerce & Economics & others Vs. Shri Balaraman Vembulu [2001(1) Bom. C.R. 367], in support of his case. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent – Management contended that the provisions of Rule 26 claimed by the Petitioner in is favour, will not apply because the Petitioner was appointed in permanently un-aided division and the prayer for absorption was not made before the Tribunal and the whole basis of Appeal was reinstatement, which is not granted. He submitted that since the entire un-aided division was required to be closed down at the relevant time, even the situation provided under Rule 26 (9) of the said Rules did not exist. He submitted that the material in that respect has been considered by the Tribunal and since the amount of six months salary was accepted by the Petitioner, after such long lapse of time, the impugned order need not be interfered. 12. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, in my view, no case for interference is made out for the following reasons : (i) Rule 26(2)(iii) of the said Rules provides for retrenchment of employees ‘from aided school’ whose services are proposed to be Vina Khadpe 4 902.as.wp.5702.2014 @.doc retrenched and it is contemplated that such employees shall be absorbed. This sub-Rule finds further reference in Rule 26(9) of the said Rules where it is provided that in case of fall in the number of pupils, classes or divisions, affects the scale of the employee or his status, the facility of absorption admissible as per the provisions of Rule 26(2)(iii), shall not be admissible and a mechanism for offering work at lower post, or at lower scale or part time post is provided. Thus, conjoint reading of these two rules clearly indicates that the procedure to be adopted is provided for employees on aided post. It is not disputed that in the present case that the Petitioner was appointed on permanently un-aided post. In that view of the matter, insistence of the said Rule in the case of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. (ii) Further, it has come on record that the Respondent - Deputy Director had written a latter which is at exhibit 19/6 dated 07.08.2012, which is considered by the Tribunal holding that from the said letter, it is clear that the Respondent – Management was compelled to reduce the unaided division and consequently, no work- load was available for the Petitioner. Considering such situation, the Tribunal has held that the Respondent – Management was compelled to close down the un-aided divisions of D.Ed college, and as such, indeed no work-load was available. (iii) Faced with such situation, the Tribunal has resorted to Section 11(2)(e) and (f) of the said Act and considering that the Petitioner had served for less than 10 years, six months salary (pay and allowances, if any), has been directed to be paid. Vina Khadpe 5 902.as.wp.5702.2014 @.doc (iv) In Bharat Education Society Vs. Shri Balaraman (supra) relied upon by the Petitioner, Dy. Director of Education not allowing reduction of student strength, had directed the Management to transfer the employee to other school. It also appears that the post in question was aided. In that context, this Court held that altering the status of the employee without complying with Rule 26 and without the permission of the Education Officer, is illegal. In the present case, the appointment is not on aided-post. From the communication between the Management and the Deputy Director, as discussed above, it is clear that the Education Authority was aware of the closure of the divisions. Also in the present case, there was no such transfer under consideration. In such peculiar facts, the said Judgment will not advance the case of the Petitioner. (v) The Tribunal has taken the most probable view on the basis of the material available before it. No perversity is found in the impugned order. There is no reason to interfere. 13. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 14. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR verifiable copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Vina Khadpe 6