Writ Petition No. 3556 of 2014. Case: Babar Manohar Sonyabapu Vs The President, Yashwantrao Chavan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 3556 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Kumud Bhatia, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. Nitin Dhumal, Adv., Mr. A.R. Metkari, A.G.P. |
| Judges | R. D. Dhanuka, J. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Sections 9, 9(1)(b); Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 |
| Judgement Date | April 06, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is heard finally.
-
By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (original appellant) has impugned the order dated 25th October, 2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Mumbai allowing an application filed by the respondents challenging the jurisdiction of the school tribunal on the ground that the school tribunal had no subject matter jurisdiction. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:-
-
The petitioner is qualified as M.A.,B.Ed. On 14th June, 1993, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.3 Night High School situated at Kanjur Marg.
-
On 30th June, 2008, the post of Head Master in the said school fell vacant due to the resignation of Mr.B.R.Ghanwat w.e.f. 30th June, 2008.
-
On 1st July, 2008, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 appointed Mr.Madhukar Namdeo Jadhav, respondent no.6 as an In-charge Head Master of the said school. On 9th September, 2008, the petitioner by his advocate's letter called upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to consider his willingness to work as Head Master of the said school by promoting to the said post by taking into consideration his service record. It was alleged in the said letter that the service record of the senior most teacher Mr.M.N.Jadhav and other two senior most teachers Mr.A.T.Godse and Mr.A.B.Rane and also of the two junior most teachers viz. Mr.S.N.Bhosale and Mr.C.D.Desai was not satisfactory.
-
On 1st October, 2008 the petitioner met the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent no.1 and expressed his desire to work as a Head Master.
-
On 1st November, 2008, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to direct the respondent no.1 to fill up the Head Master in the said school as per the Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S.Rules. Since there was no favourable response from the respondent nos. 1 to 5 inspite of the representation made by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a writ petition (2767 of 2008) in this court inter alia praying for writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Head Master and for other reliefs. By an order dated 2nd April, 2009 this court directed the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to look into the grievance of the petitioner.
-
By their advocate's letter dated 26th June, 2009, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 informed the petitioner that it was found that the respondent no.6 was senior to the petitioner and hence he was promoted as Head Master and a proposal of approval of his appointment was sent to the Education Officer on 2nd May, 2009.
-
The petitioner through his advocate's letter dated 31st July, 2009 made a representation to the Director of Education, Pune-1 and called upon him to cancel the appointment of respondent no.6 as Head Master and to take action against the management for their acts of misconduct and inefficiency.
-
Sometime in the month of October 2009, the petitioner filed an appeal(42 of 2009) before the School Tribunal, Mumbai inter alia praying for setting aside the promotion of the respondent no.6 to the post of the Head Master to the respondent no.3 school w.e.f.1st January, 2009, for a declaration that the respondent nos. 7 and 8 were not competent to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Master as per the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the M.E.P.S.Rules and for an order and direction against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of the Head Master in respondent no.3 school w.e.f.1st January, 2009 and for consequential benefits of difference in pay and allowances of Head Master. On 8th December, 2009, the contesting respondents filed their joint written statement contesting the appeal filed by the petitioner on various grounds.
-
On 21st December, 2009, the petitioner made an application for amendment of the appeal memo to place on record certain acts of alleged misconduct of the respondent nos. 6 to 8 teachers by which those teachers had alleged to have fabricated the answer-sheets of the students. The petitioner also annexed the answer-sheets of those students in support of his amendment application.
-
On 2nd February, 2010, the respondents made an application before the school tribunal inter alia praying for framing the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of the school tribunal to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply on 5th March, 2010...
To continue reading
Request your trial