wp2518of2013.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition NO. 2518 OF 2013
PETITIONERS: 1. Vidya Vikas Mandal, Lakhandur, Distt.,
Bhandara, through its President, Smt.
Kavita Sadashiv Donadkar, Aged about
56 years, R/o Navegaon (Murkhala),
Post Mudza, Tah. & Dist. Gadchiroli.
2. Smt. Kavita Sadashiv Donadkar,
Aged about 56 years, Headmistress,
Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya, Navegaon,
R/o Navegaon (Murkhala), Post Mudza,
Tah. & Dist. Gadchrioli.
3.
Prabhakar s/o Sadashiv Donadkar,
Aged about 52 years, Member,
Managing Committee, R/o Navegaon
(Murkhala), Post Mudza,
Tah. & Dist. Gadchiroli.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Ministry of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.
4. Sadashiv s/o Shivaji Donadkar, Aged about 79 years, styling himself as Secretary of the Trust, Occu: Retired, R/o Navegaon (Murkhala), Post Mudza, Tah & Dist. Gadchiroli.
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2017 01:05:33 ::: wp2518of2013.odt 2/6 Shri. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for petitioners. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Shri N.S. Rao, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 to 3.
CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE AND M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ DATED: 13th DECEMBER, 2017.
Judgment (Per R.K.Deshpande, J)
1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th April, 2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur holding that the petitioner no.2- Smt. Kavita Sadashiv Donadkar who was acting as the Headmistress of the School is at liberty to challenge her termination from services on 13th August, 2012 by preferring a statutory appeal under Section-9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "the Act of 1977"). It further holds that till the termination of the petitioner no.2 is set aside, the senior most teacher in the school should be conferred with the administrative and financial powers by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.
2. The contention of Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that this order is liable to be set ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2017 01:05:33 ::: wp2518of2013.odt 3/6 aside on the ground that the respondent no.4 who terminated the services of the petitioner No.2, had no authority to pass such order in view of the order dated 8th February, 2012, passed by the Education Officer, which was confirmed by this Court by dismissing the writ petition No. 1385/2012 on 9th July, 2012. The another contention of Shri R.L. Khapre is that the Deputy Director had passed an order dated 19th November, 2012 cancelling the powers given to senior most teacher Shri S.R. Mahakulkar on 7th November, 2012 to administer the school and therefore the impugned order, amounts to review of the earlier order dated 19th November, 2012.
3. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has relied upon the order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 4491/2012 decided on 28th February, 2013 permitting the respondent no.4 to make representation to the Deputy Director of Education against his earlier order dated 19 th November, 2012. He submits that in view of the order passed by this Court, the Deputy Director of Education got jurisdiction and after considering the rival submissions, the order impugned was passed on 29th April, 2013, which cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2017 01:05:33 :::
wp2518of2013.odt 4/6
4. It is not in dispute that the management of the school was represented by only three persons, who are from the same family and there was dispute between them. As regards, the management of the Educational Institution, in the order dated 9 th July, 2012 passed in writ petition No.1385/2012 challenging the decision of the Education Officer given on 8th February, 2012, this Court had taken into consideration the contention that the Education Officer has passed an order in relation to the administration and management of the affairs of the Trust, which amounts to usurping the jurisdiction/Charity Commissioner under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act ("the Act of 1977"). This Court confirms the order of the Education Officer passed on 8th February, 2012 but made it subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 41A of the Act of 1977.
5. It is not in dispute that the order of terminating the services of the petitioner no.2 was passed on 13th August, 2012 by the respondent no.4. It was not by majority of the trustees as per the order passed by the Education Officer on 8th February, 2012. In view of this, we find that the Deputy Director of Education could not have cancelled his earlier order dated 19th November, 2012 by ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2017 01:05:33 ::: wp2518of2013.odt 5/6 assuming the jurisdiction in terms of the decision of this Court delivered on 28th February, 2013 in writ petition No. 4491/2012. The order of the Deputy Director impugned cannot therefore be sustained.
6. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has urged that the Deputy Director has granted liberty to the petitioner no.2 to challenge the termination by invoking the jurisdiction of the school tribunal under Section 9 of the Act of 1977 and therefore this Court should not interfere in such order in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. We are well aware of this legal position. We are not going into the merits of the controversy involved but we are restricting ourselves to challenge the order of termination on the ground of competency of the respondent no.4 to pass such an order which is contrary to the order dated 8th February, 2012 passed by Education Officer which was confirmed in Writ Petition No. 1385/2012.
7. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29th April, 2013 passed by Dy. Director of Education is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order of dismissal ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2017 01:05:33 ::: wp2518of2013.odt 6/6 of the petitioner no.2 passed on 13th August, 2012 by the respondent no.4 without any authority is also hereby quashed and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
nandurkar
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2017 01:05:33 :::