Judgment wp1972.00
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1972 OF 2000.
1.Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Hinganghat,
Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha,
through its President Dr. (Ms). Neesha
Zoting, resident of Hinganghat.
2.Prof. Divakar Game,
Secretary, Gramin Vikas Sanstha,
Hinganghat, Tahsil Hinganghat,
District Wardha,
resident of Hinganghat. ....PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Education, Mantralaya Extension
Building, Mumbai - 400 032.
2.Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3.Joint Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4.Smt. Usha wd/o Arun Thute,
Aged about 50 years, resident
of Hinganghat, Taluq Hinganghat,
District Wardha. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:20 :::
Judgment wp1972.00
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
None for Respondent No.4.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) Petitioner - Management assails communication dated 10.05.2000, and order dated 29.04.2000, granting stay of the order dated 06.04.2000.
2. By order dated 06.04.2000, respondent no.3 has accepted the amount of recovery on account of salary paid to 12 extra teachers, and dismissed the proceedings filed before him by respondent no.4.
3. Short submission of learned counsel for petitioners is, petitioners then pointed out to respondent no.3 its readiness and willingness to refund ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:20 ::: Judgment wp1972.00 3 the excess amount, but, had prayed only for installments.
4. On merits, learned counsel invites our attention to paragraph no.11 (ii). He contends that in Regulation 97.4 of the Secondary School Code, order passed by respondent no.3 on 06.04.2000, is final and no further proceedings therefore can lie against it with respondent no.1.
5. None appears for respondent no.4.
6. Learned A.G.P. for other respondents submits that in earlier round of litigation i.e. in Writ Petition No. 2555/1998, Division Bench of this Court on 12.01.2000, directed expeditious consideration of appeal, then pending. That appeal was filed by respondent no.4. The appeal was decided on 06.04.2000, and thereafter, respondent no.4 approached respondent no.1 State Government. In that proceedings on 29.04.2000, State Government stayed order of respondent no.3.
7. Learned A.G.P. has also taken us through the provisions of Regulation 97.1 to 97.4.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:20 :::
Judgment wp1972.00 4
8. We have perused Regulation No.97.1 and 97.2. It is on the subject of reduction in grants. 97.1 permits powers to be exercised after giving necessary opportunity to the school, if it is found that the provisions of Rules or then standards are not followed and efficiency in general is, deteriorated.
9. The deductions in non-salary grants envisage in Regulation 97.1, is after full opportunity to management to furnish its explanation.
10. Regulation no.97.2 enables withdrawal or reduction in grants in case of gross mismanagement, serious deterioration of standard of efficiency and discipline etc., without allowing management full opportunity of explanation. Thus, Regulation 97.2 prima facie appears to be a more drastic power.
11. Regulation 97.3 permits management an opportunity to file appeal to Director against directions issued under Regulation 97.1 or 97.2. Regulation 97.4 gives finality to decision of Director in Appeal under Regulation 97.3.
12. Here the order impugned in Writ Petition No. 2555/1998 was of ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:20 ::: Judgment wp1972.00 5 recovery of grants paid on account of salary of 12 teachers found recruited in excess unauthorizedly. It was therefore, not a non-salary grant or then not an order either withdrawing or reducing grants.
13. The arguments then advanced before the Division Bench were that an appeal against the order of recovery was already filed and pending. Statutory sanction for such appeal was not required to be gone into by that Division Bench. Accepting the fact of pendency of appeal, and willingness of State Government/Joint Director to decide it, Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to decide it. Accordingly, that appeal came to be decided on 06.04.2000 by respondent no.3.
14. As we are not in a position to treat the appeal decided as one under Regulation 97.3. We are not in a position to accept the contentions which emerged from ground no. (II) in Writ Petition.
15. However, the order dated 06.04.2000 was not questioned by the petitioner Management and they had shown their readiness and willingness to refund the amount in suitable installments. In this situation, no prejudice has been caused to respondent no.4 because of readiness and willingness ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:20 ::: Judgment wp1972.00 6 shown by petitioners.
16. We therefore, find that even today the petitioner management can very well pay the amount, however, we direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to recover that amount in 6 equal installments.
17. With these directions, we dispose of the Writ Petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:20 :::