Writ Petition Nos. 4470 of 2015, 2307 of 2012, Civil Application Nos. 445 of 2014, 2908 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 2308 of 2012, Civil Application Nos. 446 of 2014 and 2909 of 2013. Case: Siddheshwar Shikshan Sanstha Dongarsoni and Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition Nos. 4470 of 2015, 2307 of 2012, Civil Application Nos. 445 of 2014, 2908 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 2308 of 2012, Civil Application Nos. 446 of 2014 and 2909 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Prashant Bhavake, Adv. and For Respondents: M.S. Bane, AGP |
| Judges | R. D. Dhanuka, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 14; Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Sections 11, 4(6), 5, 5(3), 5(1), 5(2), 9; Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Sections 17, 22 |
| Judgement Date | May 02, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
R. D. Dhanuka, J.
-
Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. The facts in the aforesaid three writ petitions being identical and being inter-connected, were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
-
By Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2015, the petitioner No. 1-Management which runs the petitioner No. 2-School has impugned the order dated 23rd February 2015 passed by the respondent No. 3-the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli thereby vacating the stay granted to the individual approval to the so-called appointments of the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 and approval to the promotion of the respondent No. 7 and continuing the order of their approvals and seeks a writ of mandamus to cancel and/or withdraw his orders dated 15th September 2012 and 15th October 2012 by which the respondent No. 1 granted the individual approval to the appointments of the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 and approval to the promotion of the respondent No. 7.
-
By Writ Petition No. 2307 of 2012, the petitioner (respondent No. 9 in Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2015) has impugned the order dated 17th January 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur in Appeal No. 53 of 2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning termination of his service by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2015) by letter dated 23rd June 2011.
-
By Writ Petition No. 2308 of 2012, the petitioner (respondent No. 10 in Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2015) has impugned the order dated 17th January 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur in Appeal No. 53 of 2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning termination of her service by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2015) by letter dated 23rd June 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgment are described as they were described in the Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2015. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these three writ petitions are as under:--
-
The petitioner No. 1 is an Educational Institution running the petitioner No. 2-Secondary School which is recognized, fully aided secondary school having classes from 5th to 10th Std. The respondent No. 2 is the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur. The respondent No. 3 is the Education Officer (Secondary), Kolhapur appointed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "the MEPS Act"). The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were claiming to be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks in the petitioner No. 2-School. The respondent No. 7 is claiming to be promoted in the post of Junior Clerk from the post of Laboratory Assistant. The respondent No. 8 is claiming to be appointed as a Peon in the petitioner No. 2-School. The respondent Nos. 9 and 10 were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks in the petitioner No. 2-School and are the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2307 of 2012 and 2308 of 2012 respectively. The respondent No. 11 is an Ex-President of the petitioner-Sanstha. The respondent No. 12 is an Ex-Secretary of the petitioner-Sanstha.
-
It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 3 had granted permission on 12th January 2010 for publication of an advertisement in the daily newspaper for recruitment of teaching staff. On 16th January 2010, the petitioner No. 1-Management published an advertisement in the daily newspaper "Lokmat" inviting applications for appointment of one post of Shikshan Sevak from Open Category. The petitioner No. 1 appointed the respondent No. 9 to the said post of Shikshan Sevak with effect from 15th June 2010 by issuing him an appointment letter dated 14th June 2010.
-
According to the petitioners, one more post of Assistant Teacher became vacant in view of the retirement of one Assistant Teacher i.e., Mr. J.D. Pawar. The petitioners once again obtained permission from the respondent No. 3 for issuance of an advertisement for filling up the said post of Assistant Teacher. By an order dated 12th July 2010, the respondent No. 3 granted permission for issuing an advertisement to the petitioners. The petitioners accordingly published an advertisement in the daily newspaper "Lokmat" dated 14th July 2010 inviting applications for recruitment of one post of Shikshan Sevak. The petitioner No. 1 appointed the respondent No. 10 to the said post of Shikshan Sevak with effect from 26th July 2010 by issuing her a letter of appointment dated 14th July 2010.
-
It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1-management in the Managing Committee Meeting held on 20th June 2010 appointed the present Secretary of the petitioner No. 1-management in the post of Secretary and accordingly submitted a change report (492 of 2010) on 28th June 2010 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short "the MPT Act"). The tenure of the Managing Committee thereafter expired. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1-management vide the Annual General Meeting dated 21st September 2010 elected a Managing Committee for the tenure of the year 2010-13 and submitted a change report (719 of 2010) on 27th October 2010 under the provisions of the MPT Act. The petitioner No. 1-management also submitted another change report (720 of 2010) regarding the election of officials of the Managing Committee.
-
It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 11 and 12 also submitted a change report (566 of 2010) to the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of the MPT Act. According to the petitioners, the said change report submitted by the respondent Nos. 11 and 12 was false and bogus. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1-management took a charge on 21st September 2010 and started functioning of the management of the petitioner No. 2-School.
-
It is the case of the petitioners that though the respondent Nos. 11 and 12 had no right to interfere in the administration of the management of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with the Ex-Incharge Head Master Mr. Vitthal Tukaram Jadhav, they obstructed the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 from signing the muster roll and threatened them on 23rd June 2011. The respondent Nos. 9 and 10, thereafter, made a representation to the respondent No. 3-Education Officer (Secondary) and requested for a direction to the Ex-Incharge Head Master Mr. V.T. Jadhav to permit them to sign muster roll. On 30th September 2010, the respondent No. 3 temporarily rejected the individual approval to the appointments of the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 on the ground that there was a dispute in the management of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. On 18th October 2010, the respondent No. 3 directed the Ex-Incharge Head Master to permit the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 to sign the muster roll.
-
Sometime in the year 2011, the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 filed two separate appeals bearing Nos. 52 of 2011 and 53 of 2011 respectively before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur inter alia impugning the oral termination of their services. By an order dated 17th June 2012, the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal dismissed those two appeals bearing Nos. 52 of 2011 and 53 of 2011 respectively. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17th January 2012, the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 filed two separate Writ Petition bearing Nos. 2307 of 2012 and 2308 of 2012 respectively for a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction for quashing the said orders passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal.
-
It is the case of the petitioners that though the respondent No. 12 did not have any authority to publish any advertisement or to make any appointment of any staff member in the petitioner No. 2-School, the respondent No. 12 published an advertisement in the daily newspaper "Lokmat" on 18th May 2011 for recruitment of three posts of Shikshan Sevaks and one post of Junior Clerk. It is the case of the petitioners that no permission was obtained by the respondent No. 12 from the Education Officer before issuing any such advertisement. On 20th May 2011, the petitioner No. 1-management immediately made a representation to the respondent No. 3 and requested to direct the respondent Nos. 11 and 12 not to conduct any such recruitment process. The petitioners also issued a public notice in the daily newspaper "Lokmat" on 25th May 2011 and declared that the said advertisement issued by the respondent No. 12 was false and issued without any authority. A copy of the said public notice was also displayed on the notice board of the petitioner No. 2-School.
-
The respondent Nos. 11 and 12, however, conducted the recruitment process though they were not part of the petitioner No. 1-management and passed Resolutions dated 14th June 2011, 21st August 2011, 12th June 2011, 24th June 2011, 25th September 2011 and 24th June 2012 purporting to appoint the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as Shikshan Sevaks and the respondent No. 8 as Peon and promoted the respondent No. 7 to the post of Junior Clerk from the post of Laboratory Assistant. The respondent Nos. 11 and 12 through the Ex-Incharge Head Master Mr. V.T. Jadhav, thereafter, submitted a proposal on 2nd June 2011 to the respondent No. 3 Education Officer for seeking individual approval to the appointments of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8.
-
The petitioner No. 1-management through one of the Managing Committee Members, thereafter, submitted an application to the Education Officer under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought information as to whether the respondent Nos. 11 and 12 had obtained any prior permission from the Education Officer for issuing any advertisement or not. The Public Information Officer of the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 24th June 2011 informed the petitioners that the prior permission was not obtained by...
To continue reading
Request your trial