Asha Education Society vs Nandkishore Shrikrishna Wankhedkar
- SCC(2017) 15 SCC 125
- Neutral2017 INSC 723
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where teachers are appointed on a year-to-year basis to a course that itself has recognition only on a year-to-year basis, and the course is subsequently de-recognised by the competent authority, the termination of such teachers does not violate Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, but the teachers are entitled to salary and other benefits for the remaining period of the academic year in which they were terminated.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6485-6486 OF 2008
ASHA EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NANDKISHORE SHRIKRISHNA WANKHEDKAR AND ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6488-6489 OF 2008
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6490-6491 OF 2008
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. The appellant-Management approached this Court
with certain grievances regarding the direction
issued by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High
Court, for reinstatement with back wages of the
teachers under the Management.
2. According to the appellants, the appointment was
on an year-to-year basis since there was no
recognition of the course from the competent
authority.
Signature Not Verified
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-teachers Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.11 16:44:00 IST Reason: submits that the termination is against Section 5(2)
of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 2
4. It is seen from the facts that it was not a case
of appointment against the permanent vacancies. Even
according to the State, the vacancies arose only on a
year to year basis and in the case of the appellants'
institution and few other schools, it was started on
an experimental basis. As they were not able to
continue the course on permanent basis, the course
was de-recognized on 22.03.2000. Therefore, after
that year, no recognition was given and consequently,
there was no appointment, since there was no course.
5. Be that as it may, we are informed that after a
break of six years, the teachers have been
accommodated in some other schools and what survives
is only the question, at best, of back wages for the
said period.
6. This claim for back wages has to be appreciated
in the background of the appointment order. The
appointments were made on year to year basis since
the recognition was on year to year basis and the
course was discontinued also. Therefore, the maximum
the teachers can pray for, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, is back wages for the year
before the completion of which they were terminated. 3
7. These appeals are, hence, disposed of with a
direction to the appellants to pay the salary and
other benefits as should have been available to the
teachers for the remaining period of the academic
year in which they were terminated.
No costs.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
August 09, 2017.
4
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 6485-6486/2008
ASHA EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NANDKISHORE SHRIKRISHNA WANKHEDKAR AND ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 6488-6489/2008 (IX) C.A. No. 6490-6491/2008 (IX)
Date : 09-08-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Appellant(s) Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Ms. Qurratulain, Adv.
Ms. Astha Deep, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Varun Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Cheema, Adv.
Mr. Yogesh K. Ahirrao, Adv.
Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed
non-reportable Judgment.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free