1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.271 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2877 OF 2006 Umedbhai Patel English School ...Appellants v/s Shesh Narayan Pande and others ...Respondents Mr Hitesh Buch with Mr S.K. More for Appellants. Ms Anjali Helekar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No.2877 of 2006 dated 9th January 2007. That petition was filed by the present appellant. The present appellant is the management which runs a recognised private school to which the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder are applicable. One Shesh Narayan Pande who is respondent No.1 filed appeal No.MUM/15 of 2005 before the School Tribunal, Mumbai challenging the order terminating his services as a Teacher in the recognised private school of the appellant dated 22nd January 2005. His termination was effected on the ground that there is reduction of workload of the subject which is taught by the respondent No.1. The appeal was decided by order dated 24th July 2006. The School Tribunal held that the management has not been able to show that there is reduction in 3 workload. It also held that the order of termination has been issued without complying with the mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the said Rules. The School Tribunal therefore granted reinstatement of the Teacher with full back wages. That order was challenged in this Court by writ petition No.2877 of 2006. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the footing that the School Tribunal was not justified in holding that there is no reduction in workload. The leaned Single Judge held that even assuming that there was reduction in workload, the order of the School Tribunal cannot be faulted because requirement of Rule 26 has not been complied with. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal. 2] We also proceed on the basis of assumption that there was reduction in workload. Perusal of provisions of Rule 26 which is quoted by the School Tribunal in its order shows that obtaining of prior approval in case the management wants to terminate the services of a Teacher on the ground 4 that there is reduction in workload is necessary. It has also come on record that though the management wrote letters to the Education Department seeking its approval, no approval was actually granted. The law is now settled that whenever the statute incorporates requirement of the authority obtaining prior approval, such requirement is to be considered mandatory. In our opinion, therefore, as admittedly no prior approval was obtained by the management before issuing any termination, no fault can be found in the order of the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal. Appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA)