Supreme Court clarifies appointment of non-teaching staff as Shikshan Sevak: Sant Bhagwan Baba Shikshan Mandal vs. Gunwant (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 3, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 405
Judges: Hima Kohli, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can a non-teaching staff member of a school be appointed as a teacher if they acquire the necessary qualifications? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of a Shikshan Sevak in Maharashtra. The core issue revolved around whether a person initially employed as a peon could be appointed to a teaching position (Shikshan Sevak) based on newly acquired educational qualifications, and whether the school management was obligated to consider such an appointment. This judgment clarifies the rights of non-teaching staff in private schools to be considered for teaching positions upon acquiring the requisite qualifications. The bench comprised Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the appointment of a Shikshan Sevak (a teaching position) in a school run by Sant Bhagwan Baba Shikshan Mandal. The respondent, Gunwant, was initially employed as a peon in the school on June 14, 1991. His appointment was approved on January 29, 1998. While working as a peon, Gunwant completed his Bachelor of Arts degree in 2004 and a Bachelor of Physical Education degree in 2005.

In 2005, the State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution (GR) on June 10, 2005, for implementing the revised Shikshan Sevak Yojana. This GR stated that if a non-teaching employee acquires the necessary educational qualifications for a teaching post, they should be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak. In 2007, the state issued another GR on February 15, 2007, to implement an alternative scheme for appointing Shikshan Sevaks. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, was amended to include the post of Shikshan Sevak.

Gunwant made several representations to the school management for appointment as a Shikshan Sevak after acquiring the necessary qualifications. However, when a vacancy arose in 2006 due to the retirement of a Physical Education teacher, the school management advertised the post and appointed another individual (Respondent No. 5) instead of considering Gunwant. Gunwant then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging this action.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, allowed the Writ Petition filed by Gunwant, directing the school management to appoint him as a Shikshan Sevak by December 31, 2009. The High Court held that Gunwant was eligible for the post of Shikshan Sevak, given his acquired qualifications and the relevant Government Resolutions. The school management then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions and government resolutions relevant to this case are:

• Government Resolution dated June 10, 2005: This GR implemented the revised Shikshan Sevak Yojana, stating that non-teaching employees who acquire the educational qualifications for a teaching post should be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks. Paragraph 8 of the GR states:

  “8.Where the non-teaching employee in the secondary school and Junior college acquires educational qualification required for teachers and such posts are available in the secondary and higher secondary/school/colleges, then such non-teaching member will have to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak and he will be entitled for honourarium as applicable to Shikshan Sevak and all other terms and conditions will be applicable to him. However, service rendered by non-teaching staff will be taken into consideration for pension”.

• Government Resolution dated February 15, 2007: This GR implemented an alternative scheme for appointing Shikshan Sevaks, taking into account the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.
• The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: This Act was amended to include the post of Shikshan Sevak under Section 2(24A). Section 5 of the Act was also amended to mandate the management to fill every permanent vacancy with a qualified person. The amended Section 5 states:

  “5. (1) The Management shall, as soon as possible, fill in, in the manner prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by the appointment of a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy: [Provided that, unless such vacancy is to be filled in by promotion, the Management shall, before proceeding to fill such vacancy, ascertain from the Educational Inspector, Greater Bombay, [the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad or, as the case may be, the Director or the officer designated by the Director in respect of schools imparting technical, vocational, art or special education, whether there is any suitable person available on the list of surplus persons maintained by him, for absorption in other schools; and in the event of such person being available, the Management shall appoint that person in such vacancy.] (2) Every person appointed to fill a permanent vacancy [except Shikshan sevak] shall be on probation for a period of two years. Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), he shall, on completion of this probation period of two years, be deemed to have been confirmed. [Provided that, every person appointed as [Shikshan sevak)] shall be on probation for a period of three years.] [(2A) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), shikshan sevak shall, on completion of the probation period of three years, be deemed to have been appointed and confirmed as a teacher.] (3) If in the opinion of the Management, the work or behaviour of any probationer, during the period of his probation, is not satisfactory, the Management may terminate his services at any time during the said period after giving him one month’s notice [or salary [or honorarium] of one month in lieu of notice]. (4) If the services of any probationer are terminated under sub-section (3) and he is reappointed by the Management in the same school or any other school belonging to it within a period of one year from the date on which his services were terminated, then the period of probation undergone by him previously shall be taken into consideration in calculating the required period of probation for the purposes of sub-section (2). [(4A) Nothing in sub-section (2), (3) or (4) shall apply to a person appointed to fill a permanent vacancy by promotion or by absorption as provided under the proviso to sub-section (1).] (5) The Management may fill in every temporary vacancy by appointing a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy. The order of appointment shall be drawn up in the form prescribed in that behalf, and shall state the period of appointment of such person.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (School Management):

• The school management argued that Gunwant was not entitled to be promoted from a non-teaching post (Peon) to a teaching post (Shikshan Sevak). They contended that this would contravene the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981.
• They relied on Clause 3 of Schedule ‘F’ of the Rules, which states that the seniority of non-teaching staff should be maintained, and if a staff member improves their qualifications, they should be given preference for posts like Laboratory Assistant or Clerk, not for teaching posts.
• The school management claimed that they had issued an advertisement for the post of Shikshan Sevak, and Gunwant did not apply. They argued that they were entitled to fill the post based on the advertisement.

Arguments by the Respondent (Gunwant):

• Gunwant argued that the amendment to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which included the post of Shikshan Sevak, obligated the management to consider him for the post as he had acquired the necessary qualifications.
• He contended that the GR of June 10, 2005, clearly stated that a non-teaching employee who acquires the educational qualifications for a teaching post should be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak.
• He argued that the school management should have considered him for the post instead of issuing a public advertisement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the school management to appoint the respondent (Gunwant) as a Shikshan Sevak, given that he was initially a non-teaching employee (Peon) who had subsequently acquired the necessary educational qualifications.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was:

• Whether the school management was obligated to consider Gunwant for the post of Shikshan Sevak, instead of advertising the post to the public.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Government Resolution dated June 10, 2005 was followed by the Court, which clarified that non-teaching employees with requisite qualifications should be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks.
• The Government Resolution dated February 15, 2007 was followed by the Court, which implemented an alternative scheme for appointing Shikshan Sevaks.
• The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 2(24A) was followed by the Court, which defined Shikshan Sevak and included it within the Act.
• The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5 was followed by the Court, which mandated filling of permanent vacancies with qualified persons, including Shikshan Sevaks.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Acquisition of Qualifications: The Court emphasized that Gunwant had acquired the necessary educational qualifications for the post of Shikshan Sevak while working as a peon. This was a significant factor in his favor.
• Government Resolutions: The Court relied heavily on the Government Resolution of June 10, 2005, which explicitly stated that non-teaching employees who acquire the necessary qualifications should be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks.
• Amendment to the Act: The Court also considered the amendment to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which included the post of Shikshan Sevak, making it clear that the post was within the purview of the Act.
• Obligation to Consider: The Court noted that the school management had an obligation to consider Gunwant for the post of Shikshan Sevak and should not have proceeded directly to advertising the post to the public.
• Equity and Justice: The Court also considered the fact that Gunwant had been serving as a peon for many years and had been denied the opportunity to be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak despite having the required qualifications.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The Court noted that the respondent no.1, who was working as a peon, had obtained permission from the school management to pursue further education and improve his qualifications.
• The Court observed that the respondent no.1 had acquired the necessary qualifications to be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak.
• The Court pointed out that the respondent no.1 had submitted a representation to the school management to be appointed to the post of Shikshan Sevak as and when a vacancy arose.
• The Court emphasized that the school management did not approach the Education Inspector/Education Officer/Zilla Parishad to fill the vacancy with a suitable person from the list of surplus persons. Instead, the school management issued an advertisement inviting applications from the public, ignoring the claim of the respondent no.1.
• The Court noted that the school management did not file the relevant page of the daily newspaper along with their counter affidavit to prove that a public notice was issued.
• The Court observed that the school management did not dispute that the respondent no.1 had submitted an application to be appointed to the post.
• The Court stated that the language used in the regulation dated 10th June, 2005, made it clear that the employee was not required to make a representation for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak, and an obligation was cast on the school management to appoint a member of the non-teaching staff who had acquired the educational qualification for such a post.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Once the respondent no.1 had acquired the requisite qualification in the course of his service with the appellant no. 3-School, and the relevant GR which was ultimately incorporated in the Act of 1977, permitted appointment of a non-teaching employee in a school as a Shikshan Sevak subject to the employee acquiring the requisite educational qualifications and further, subject to such a post being available, the appellants cannot be heard to state that the respondent no.1 being a part of the non-teaching staff, was not entitled for being considered for appointment to the subject post.”

“In fact, the language used in the regulation dated 10th June, 2005, itself makes it clear that the employee was not required to take any steps by making a representation for being appointed to the post of a Shikshan Sevak and an obligation was cast on the appellants to ensure that on a permanent vacancy being available to the post of Shikshan Sevak, a member of the non-teaching staff, who would have acquired the educational qualification required for such a post, ought to be appointed directly.”

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and does not deserve any interference.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Non-teaching employees in private schools who acquire the necessary educational qualifications for a teaching post are eligible to be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks.
• School managements are obligated to consider such employees for the post of Shikshan Sevak when a vacancy arises, instead of directly advertising the post to the public.
• The relevant Government Resolutions and the amended Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, support such appointments.
• This judgment clarifies the rights of non-teaching staff in private schools to be considered for teaching positions upon acquiring the requisite qualifications.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The appellants were directed to pay a consolidated sum of ₹10,00,000 to Gunwant for the financial loss he incurred due to non-appointment.
• The notional date of Gunwant’s appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak would be reckoned as January 1, 2010, for seniority and retiral benefits.
• The Education Officer was directed to issue a letter indicating Gunwant’s pay scale notionally computed for the post of Shikshan Sevak from January 1, 2010, and for the post of Assistant Teacher from January 1, 2013.
• Respondent No. 5 was directed to be accommodated on the post of an Assistant Teacher in any of the schools/colleges run by the appellant society if a vacancy is available. Alternatively, the State authorities should consider him for appointment as a surplus teacher.
• There would be no recovery of salary or emoluments from Respondent No. 5 for the period he rendered services with the school.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a non-teaching employee of a private school who acquires the necessary educational qualifications for a teaching post is eligible to be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak, and the school management is obligated to consider such an employee for the post. This judgment clarifies and reinforces the legal position established by the Government Resolutions and the amended Act of 1977. It reinforces the position that non-teaching staff who improve their educational qualifications should be given preference for teaching positions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that a non-teaching employee who acquires the necessary qualifications can be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak. This judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the claims of existing employees who improve their qualifications and ensures that they are not overlooked for teaching positions. The Court also directed the school management to compensate the employee for the financial loss incurred due to the delay in appointment.