The case of Chandrakant Shikshan Sanstha v. Rajendra was adjudicated by the Bombay High Court on October 9, 2009. This legal dispute centers around the termination of permanent employees by the management of Chandrakant Shikshan Sanstha, a private educational institution, following the derecognition of one of its schools. The primary issues revolved around the interpretation and applicability of specific rules under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 25A, Rule 26, and Rule 27(d). The petitioner, representing the management, challenged the School Tribunal's decision, arguing that termination under Rule 25A should not be subjected to Rule 27(d), especially given the existence of a separate seniority list for their girls' school, Matoshree Vidya Mandir, Telkamptee.

The Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari, examined two main contentions raised by the petitioner. First, the petitioner argued that termination under Rule 25A, introduced in 1987, should be automatic upon derecognition of a school and not subject to Rule 26 or Rule 27(d), which pertain to retrenchment. Second, the petitioner contended that having a separate seniority list for Matoshree Vidya Mandir rendered Rule 27(d) inapplicable. After thorough deliberation, the Court upheld the School Tribunal's decision, dismissing the petition. The Court concluded that Rule 27(d) remains applicable even when termination occurs under Rule 25A, especially in the context of managing multiple schools. The Court emphasized that the existence of a separate seniority list did not absolve the management from adhering to Rule 27(d). Consequently, the petition challenging the applicability of Rule 27(d) was dismissed, and no orders were made regarding costs.

The petitioner referenced two significant prior judgments to bolster their case:

• Dattaraj v. S.S Shikshan Sanstha, 2004 (1) Mh.L.J 516: This Division Bench judgment upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 25A, affirming that the classification made by the Rule Making Authority was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
• N.T Deshmukh & Others v. State Of Maharashtra & Others, 2006 (3) Mh.L.J 220: Although cited by the petitioner to argue against the applicability of Rule 27(d) when termination is under Rule 25A, the Court clarified that this particular judgment did not address the issue at hand, rendering it inapplicable to the present case.

These precedents were pivotal in the Court's analysis, particularly in assessing the boundaries and interrelations of Rules 25A, 26, and 27(d).

The Court's legal reasoning unfolded as follows:

1. Interpretation of Rules: The Court meticulously examined the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. It discerned that Rule 25A, introduced in 1987, specifically addresses termination due to derecognition or voluntary closure of a school, thereby distinguishing such termination from retrenchment under Rule 26.
2. Applicability of Rule 27(d): Despite Rule 25A being a separate provision, the Court held that Rule 27(d) remains pertinent when multiple schools are managed by a single entity. Rule 27(d) mandates that in cases of termination under Rule 26, common seniority must be observed across all schools managed, ensuring fairness and consistency.
3. Seniority Lists: The petitioner’s argument regarding the separate seniority list for Matoshree Vidya Mandir was dismissed. The Court observed that the School Tribunal had validly found a lack of evidence supporting the existence of an operational separate seniority list, as the management failed to produce original documents.
4. Consistency and Avoidance of Arbitrary Decisions: The Court emphasized that allowing management to bypass Rule 27(d) based on internal administrative structures could lead to arbitrary terminations, undermining the principles of fairness and justice enshrined in the Rules.

This judgment reinforces the hierarchical structure and interdependency of the rules governing employee termination in private educational institutions in Maharashtra. By upholding the applicability of Rule 27(d) even when termination occurs under Rule 25A, the Court ensures that:

• Uniformity in Termination Procedures: Managements overseeing multiple schools must adhere to a common seniority framework, preventing discrepancies and ensuring equitable treatment of employees across all institutions.
• Preservation of Employee Rights: Employees are safeguarded against arbitrary dismissals, as management cannot selectively apply termination rules to circumvent established seniority protocols.
• Guidance for Future Cases: Future disputes involving termination under similar conditions will be assessed with the understanding that Rule 27(d) has overarching applicability, thereby setting a clear precedent.

• Rule 25A: Introduced in 1987, this rule deals with the termination of permanent employees when a school is either voluntarily closed by management or derecognized by authorities. It mandates a three-month notice period post a show cause notice from the Deputy Director.
• Rule 26: Pertains to the retrenchment of employees under normal circumstances, allowing management to terminate services of permanent employees with a three-month notice. It distinguishes between regular retrenchment and specific cases like school closure.
• Rule 27(d): Applies when a management operates multiple schools. It requires that any retrenchment under Rule 26 be executed considering the common seniority of employees across all schools, ensuring that termination decisions are fair and not arbitrary across different branches.
• Seniority List: A ranked list that dictates the order in which employees are to be considered for promotions, transfers, or terminations based on their length of service.
• Derecognition: The official withdrawal of recognition from an educational institution by the accrediting or governing body, effectively meaning the school can no longer operate.

The Chandrakant Shikshan Sanstha v. Rajendra judgment serves as a pivotal reference in understanding the interplay between Rules 25A, 26, and 27(d) under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. By affirming that Rule 27(d) remains applicable even when termination occurs under Rule 25A, the Bombay High Court underscored the importance of maintaining uniformity and fairness in employment termination practices across multiple educational institutions managed by a single entity. This ensures that employees' rights are consistently protected, and management cannot exploit administrative provisions to effect arbitrary dismissals. Consequently, this judgment has fortified the legal framework governing private school employees, fostering a more equitable and just working environment.