Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 23 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Vijaykumar Waman Wakale (employee)
  • Respondents: The Secretary / President / Trustee, St. Philomena School Trust
  • Writ Petition No.: 2890 of 2010
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition challenging the order dated 21 January 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai (Appeal No. 11 of 2009) which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against his termination effective 14 October 2006.
  • Petitioner’s Claims: Asserted appointment as Shikshan Sevak from 03 February 2001 for a three‑year period on a permanent vacancy; alleged harassment by management and illegal termination without the one‑month notice or salary in lieu required under Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules 1981.
  • Management’s Defence: Submitted that a written termination order dated 14 October 2006 was served, accompanied by a cheque of Rs 4,000 as one‑month honorarium in lieu of notice; denied any oral termination; produced memos indicating unsatisfactory performance and multiple apology letters from the petitioner (28 Sept 2006, 30 Aug 2006, 05 Oct 2006, 07 Oct 2006) for physically punishing students.
  • Tribunal Findings: Dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on merits, holding that the termination letter was valid and the petitioner could not prove illegality.
  • Court Observations:
  • The petitioner himself admitted in his appeal memo that the notice dated 14 Oct 2006 terminating his service was issued.
  • The court accepted the termination order and the accompanying cheque as proof of compliance with Section 5(3).
  • Performance memos and apology letters demonstrated the petitioner’s unsatisfactory conduct during probation.
  • The petitioner’s actions of sending letters to ministers, government authorities, and undertaking a hunger strike were noted as pressurising tactics.
  • The court found no merit in the claim of oral termination and concluded that the statutory requirement of one‑month notice or salary in lieu had been satisfied.
  • No perversity or error was identified in the tribunal’s order; therefore, no interference was warranted.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged.
  • No order as to costs.
  • All concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed, QR‑verifiable copy of the order (digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE on 23 September 2026 at 18:17:16 +0530).

Topics: Employment Law, Education Sector, Court Proceedings