Bombay High Court
Bharat Sonaji Bankar vs Mr.S.V.Kurundkar on 24 October, 2013
Bench: R.M. Borde, R.V. Ghuge
{1}
wp416812.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
(1) WRIT PETITION NO.4168 OF 2012
1 Mahila Vikas Mandal, Aurangabad,
through its Secretary
Shri Vijay s/o Charles Shrisundar,
age: 54 years, Occ: service,
R/o C.M.S. Mission Compound,
Bungalow No.28B, Aurangabad.
2 Shashikant Tukaram Patil,
age: 43 years, Occ: service,
R/o Plot No.11, Laxmipuram,
Pisadevi Road, Harsool,
Aurangabad.
3 Sunanda Baburao Ambhore,
age: 57 years, Occ: service,
R/o Ghati, Gautam Nagar,
H.No.1/19/1000.
4 Sunanda Shantaram Patil,
age; 49 years, Occ: service,
R/o Plot No.1, A-1, Mayurban,
Gadiyavihar Road, Aurangabad.
5 Sau Mangala Rajaram Palve,
age: 38 years, Occ: service,
R/o Plot No.9, Gajanan Colony,
Garkheda area, Aurangabad.
6 Smt.Kalpana Anil Kamble,
age: 41 years, Occ: service,
Flat No.A-16, Chinar Garden,
Padegaon, Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{2}
wp416812.odt
7 Monika Anil Khetre,
age: 43 years, Occ: service,
R/o Anil Niwas, Bungalow No.28B,
Chavani, Aurangabad.
8 Rafat Sultana Nasiruddin Ansari,
age: 54 years, Occ: service,
R/o H.No.2-5-17, Bhadkal Gate,
Aurangabad.
9 Samson Jacob Khetre,
age: 42 years, Occ: service,
R/o 28B, Cantonment,
Aurangabad.
10 Bharat Sonaji Bankar,
age: 42 years, Occ: service,
R/o Jaibhimnagar, Town Hall,
Aurangabad. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2 The Collector, Aurangabad.
3 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad.
5 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla parishad, Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{3}
wp416812.odt
6 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for petitioners.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.U.B.Bondar, advocate for Respondent No.6.
WITH
(2) WRIT PETITION NO. 5899 OF 2012
1
Maharashtra Rajya Manya Khajagi
Prathmik Shikshak Va Shikshketr Karmachari
Mahasangh,
Through its Treasurer,
Subhash s/o Arjunrao Gangurde
age 52 years, occ. Head Master,
r/o N-5, Arihant Nagar
Near Jain Mandir, Behind Sindi Colony
Aurangabad.
2 Janseva Shikshak Sanghatana,
Through its President
Maheboob s/o Jainoddin Tamboli
age 40 years, occ. Asst. Teacher,
R/o c/o Petitioner no. 1.
3 Yuvak Shikshak Karmachari Sangh
Through its Founder
Aparao s/o Hanumant Itekar
age 38 years, occ. Asst. Teacher
r/o c/o Petitioner no. 1.
4 Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Shikshak Parishad
Through its President,
Sachin s/o Maruti Nagtilak
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{4}
wp416812.odt
age 35 years, occ. Asst. Teacher
r/o c/o Petitioner no. 1. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
School and Education Department
Maharashtra State Mantralaya
Mumbai 32.
2 Chief Secretary
State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3 Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Station Road, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad.
Respondents
Mr.S.B.Ghatol Patil with Mr.P.S.Kochar & Mr. Sanjay Kolhare,
advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents.
WITH
(3) WRIT PETITION NO. 5900 OF 2012
1 Fala-E-Millat Bahuudeshiya
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur
Through its President
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{5}
wp416812.odt
Shri Mohmadkhan Husenkhan Pathan
age 43 years, occ. business
r/o At Post Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga
Dist. Latur.
2 Gaus-Ul-Uloom Urdu Primary School,
Nilanga, Tq.Nilanga, Dist. Latur
Through its Head Master
Shri Shaikh Mudassir Khalil
Age 33 years, Occ. Service
r/o Shivaji Nagar Nilanga
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune 1
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Respondents
Mr. S. G. Rudrawar, advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to
3.
Mr.P.R.Tandale, advocate for Respondent No.4.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{6}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(4) WRIT PETITION NO. 5909 OF 2013
Ashwaghosh Shikshan Va Vyayam
Prasarak Mandal
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad
Through its Secretary
Pankaj Ramchandra Bharsakhale
age 30 years, occ. Secretary
r/o New Shreyanagar,
Aurangabad.
Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
School Education & Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State,
Pune.
3 The Dy. Director of Education
(Secondary) Aurangabad.
4 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad.
Respondents
Mrs. A. S. Rasal, advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{7}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(5) WRIT PETITION NO.5910 of 2013
1 Shivraj s/o Ginyadev Nagargoje
age 28 years, occ. service
2 Anantrao s/o Ambadasrao Ambhore
age 27 years, occ. service
3 Satish s/o Vijay Ippear
age 25 years, occ. service
4
Shrikant s/o Dinkar Ippear
age 28 years, occ. service
All r/o Purna, Tq. Purna
Dist. Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Department of School Education
and sports, Mantralaya
Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education (M.S.)
Central Building, Pune.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad Region,
Aurangabad.
4 The District Collector, Parbhani
And/or President of Committee
Constituted as per G.R. dtd 4.7.2012,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{8}
wp416812.odt
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
Respondents
Mr. A. L. Tikle, advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. A V. Gondhalekar, AGovernment Pleader for Respondents No.1
to 4.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, advocate for Respondent no. 5.
WITH
(6) WRIT PETITION NO. 6163 of 2012
1 Sarjerao Satwaji More
age 45 years, occ. Secretary
AT Post CIDCO, ND 42 J 237/5
Vaibhav Nagar,
Nanded.
2 Pandurang Deorao Jadhav
age 55 years, occ. Vice President,
r/o At post Tandali, Tq. Mukhed
Dist. Nanded.
3 Shivaji Manikrao Shinde
age 50 years, occ. Joint Secretary
r/o Digras (Bk), Tq. Kandhar
Dist. Nanded. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education & Sports Department
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{9}
wp416812.odt
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Nanded Region, Nanded.
4 The District Collector,
Nanded.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. S. R. Choukidar, advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(7) WRIT PETITION NO. 6245 of 2012
1 Progressive Friends Cricle
Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
Shri Datta s/o Ganesh Tumwad
age 65 years, occ. Social Worker
r/o Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
2 Jivandeep Model School
Kalu Tanda, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Head Master.
Petitioner
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{10}
wp416812.odt
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education & Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Region,
Latur.
4 The Collector, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. Ravi R. Bangar and Mr.I.D.Maniyar, advocates for Petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for Respondent no. 5.
WITH
(8) WRIT PETITION NO. 6247 OF 2012
1 Milind Vidya Prasarak Mandal
Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded
Through its President
Shri Anatma Dadarao Kayapak
Occ. Social Worker
r/o Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat
Dist. Nanded.
2 Samata Primary School,
Sidhartha Nagar, Kinwat
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{11}
wp416812.odt
Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded
Through its Head Master.
Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education & Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Region, Latur.
4 The Collector, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. R. R. Bangar & Mr.I.D.Maniyar, advocates for Petitioners.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to
4.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for Respondent no. 5.
WITH
(9) WRIT PETITION NO. 6333 OF 2012
1 Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Yevati
Through its Secretary
Madhavi Rajeshwar Misal
age 40 years, occ. Medical Practitioner
r/o Shivaji Nagar Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed
Dist. Latur.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{12}
wp416812.odt
2 Kisan Prathmik Vidyalaya, Kabnoor
Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Head Master
Tukaram Sambhaji Shinde
age 39 years, occ. service
r/o Kabnoor
Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune 1
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division,
Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to
3.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for Respondent No.4.
WITH
(10) WRIT PETITION NO. 6390 OF 2012
Manav Vikas Rashtriya Sikshan
Prashiksha Prasarak Sanstha
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{13}
wp416812.odt
Daur, Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded
Through its Vice President
Sau. Sitabai Ramchandra Rathod
Age 55 years, occ. household. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
School Education Department
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya
Mumbai 32.
2
Chief Secretary
State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3 The Commissioner Social Welfare
Maharashtra State,
3, Church Road, 5th Floor,
Pune - 1.
4 The Deputy Commissioner
Social Welfare,
Latur Division, Latur
Gandhi Chowk, Latur.
5 The Assistant Commissioner
Social Welfare, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
Respondents
Mr. V. D. Salunke, advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{14}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(11) WRIT PETITION NO. 6656 OF 2012
1 Allama Hakeem Mohammad Yousuf
Nayyarr Education Society, Beed
Through its President
Syed Zakriya Syed Younus
age 66 years, occ. Social Work
r/o New Bhaji Market
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2 Anjuman Ishat-e-Taleem Beed,
Through its Secretary
Khan Sabiha Begum
Ahmed Bin Abood,
age 57 years, occ. Social Work
r/o Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
3 Muslim Education and Welfare
Association, Beed
Through its Secretary
Shaikh Sameer Ahmed
Shaikh Iftekhar Ahmed
aged 50 years, occ. Social Work
r/o Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
4 Tiger Welfare Association, Beed
Through its Secretary / President
Shaikh Nizam Shaikh Jainoddin
age 48 years, occ. Social Work
r/o Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
School Education & Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:29 :::
{15}
wp416812.odt
2 The Collector, Beed
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad.
5 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Beed. Respondents
Mr. C. V. Thombre, advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents.
WITH
(12) WRIT PETITION NO. 6775 OF 2012
1 Akhil Bhartiya Maratha Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Nanded
HUDCO
Shri Shivshahi Nivas
Vaibhav Nagar, Nanded
Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
Pralhad Reghunathrao Gavane
2 Datta Gunaji Suryawanshi
age 42 years, occ. Headmaster
Bapusaheb Deshmukh Primary School
HUDCO, Vaibhav Nagar
Nanded
r/o ND/116 HUDCO
Nanded. Petitioners
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{16}
wp416812.odt
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education & Sports Department
Maharashtra State
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Maharahstra State, Pune.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Nanded Region, nanded.
4
The District Collector,
Nanded.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. S. R. Choukidar, advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to
4.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for Respondent no. 5.
WITH
(13) WRIT PETITION NO. 4892 OF 2013
Sayyed Akhtar Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Parbhani
Through its President
Shahinbegum d/o Rashidkhan
age 35 years, occ. household
r/o Masum Colony
Near Fatima Building
Dargah Road, Parbhani
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. Petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{17}
wp416812.odt
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
School Education and
Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 Director of Education
Pune.
3 Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani
Respondents
Mr. S. G. Munde, advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, advocate for Respondent no. 4.
WITH
(14) WRIT PETITION NO. 5242 OF 2012
Khaja Mainoddin Pathan
age 50 years, occ. business & Secretary
of Amrut Baba Vikas Sanstha,
Andora
Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur
R/o Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. Petitioner
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{18}
wp416812.odt
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Pune 1
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4
The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Respondents
Mr. V. D. Gunale, advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. P. R. Tandale, advocate for Respondent no. 4.
WITH
(15) WRIT PETITION NO. 5453 OF 2012
Vithai Sevabhai Sanstha
Udgir, Dist. Latur
Through its President
Arvind s/o Manoharrao Patki
age 35 years, occ. agri.
r/o Shri Nagar Colony
Udgir, Dist. Latur. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{19}
wp416812.odt
School Education and sports
Department, Mantralaya
Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Primary, Maharashtra State
Pune, Central Building
Station Road,
Pune.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Gandhi Chowk
Latur.
4
The Education Officer
Primary, Zilla Parishad
Latur. Dist. Latur. Respondents
Mr. S. V. Kulkarni, advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to
3.
Mr. P. R. Tandale, advocate for Respondent no.4.
WITH
(16) WRIT PETITION NO.5454 OF 2012
1 Imtiyaz Educational and Welfare Society
Nanded through its President
Shakilur Rahaman s/o Abdul Rahaman
age 47 years, occ. Business
r/o Noruniya Nagar, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
2 Modern Primary Urdu School,
Pakiza Nagar, Nanded
Through its Head Master
Shahed Siddiqui s/o Sk. Wajed
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{20}
wp416812.odt
age 46 years, occ. service
r/o Khusro Nagar, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
3 Tahera Begum d/o Abdul Razzakh
age 46 years, occ. service
r/o Bagwan Galli, Near Degloor Naka
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
4 Aagela Fatema d/o Sd. Ahmed Abbas
age 39 years, occ. service
r/o Omer Colony, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
5
Najmannissa Begum d/o Habib Ali Hashmi
age 38 years, occ. service
r/o Madina Nagar, Mondha
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
6 Nasimmunissa Begum d/o Md. Salahuddin
age 44 years, occ. service
r/o Omer Colony, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
7 Sahera Begum d/o S. Shahnoor
age 44 years, occ. service
r/o Omer Colony, Nanded
Dist. Nanded. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Collector
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{21}
wp416812.odt
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
6 The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist. Nanded. Respondents
Mr. V. G. Salgare, advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for Respondents No.5 & 6.
WITH
(17) WRIT PETITION NO.5455 OF 2012
Mahatma Gandhi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Office at Aakhada Balapur
Dist. Hingoli,
Through its Secretary Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya Mumbai 32.
2 The Collector,
Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{22}
wp416812.odt
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad/Latur.
5 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Hingoli
Dist. Hingoli.
6 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Hingoli
Dist. Hingoli.
Respondents
Mr. V. G. Salgare, advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader and
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
(18) WRIT PETITION NO. 5691 OF 2012
1 Tukaram s/o Narayan Hokarnekar
age 56 years, occ. Social Worker
Secretary Milind Education Society
Hokarna, Tq. Mukhed
Dist. Nanded.
2 Subhas /so Bhivaji Ogale
ag 45 years, occ. service
Headmaster Vasantdada Patil
Prathmik Shala Mukhed
Dist. Nanded. Petitioners
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{23}
wp416812.odt
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
Department of School Education and Sports
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
M.S., Central Building, Pune.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Region, Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. A. A. Mundhe, advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for Respondent no.4.
WITH
(19) WRIT PETITION NO. 5718 OF 2012
1 Narshiana Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
at Moterga
Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
2 Shrikrishna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
At Gojegaon, Tq. Mukhed
Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
3 Shri Venktesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{24}
wp416812.odt
at Gojegaon, Tq. Mukhed
Dist. Nanded
Through its President. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School and Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 001.
2 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
near Gandhi Chowk
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Respondents
Mr. S. R. Kolhare, advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 3.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for Respondent no.2
WITH
(20) WRIT PETITION NO. 5719 OF 2012
1 Grambharti Sevabhavi Prathisthan
At Vilegaon
Tq. Deoni Dist. Latur
Through its Secretary
2 Jaikisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
At Janapur, Tq. Udgir
Dist. Latur
Through its Secretary
3 Praveen Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{25}
wp416812.odt
At Gondgaon (Vijay Nagar)
Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur
Through its President. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School and Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya
Mumbai 400 001.
2 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Near Gandhi Chowk
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
Respondents
Mr. S. R. Kolhare, advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 3.
Mr. P. R. Tandale, advocate for Respondent no. 2.
WITH
(21) WRIT PETITION NO.5726 OF 2012
1 Kai Nagnath Deoji Motewar
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
At Degloor
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
Through its President
2 The Headmaster
Pragati Primary School,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{26}
wp416812.odt
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 001.
2 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Near Gandhi Chowk
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Respondents
Mr. S. R. Kolhare, advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 3.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for Respondent no.2.
WITH
(22) WRIT PETITION NO. 5727 OF 2012
Bhagyashri Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
at Dhanegaon
Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur
Through its Secretary Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School and Education and Sport Department
Mantralaya
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{27}
wp416812.odt
Mumbai 400 001.
2 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Near Gandhi Chowk
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Respondents
Mr. S. R. Kolhare, advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 3.
Mr. P. R. Tandale, advocate for Respondent no. 2.
ig WITH
(23) WRIT PETITION NO. 4358 OF 2012
1 Nobal Education Society
Labour Colony, Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Abdul Waheed s/o Abdul Sattar
Labour Colony, Nanded, Dist. Nanded
2 Abdul Jabbar s/o Abdul Gaffor
Age 56 years, Occu: Head Master,
Nobal Primary School, Labour Colony,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
(Copy to be served on the Govt. Pleader,
High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2 The Director of Education (Primary)
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{28}
wp416812.odt
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
Respondents
S/Shri Hrishikesh A. Joshi and M.M.Tamane, advocates for
petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 & 2.
S/Shri S.G.Sangle and V.S.Panpatte, advocates for Respondent No.
3.
ig WITH
(24) WRIT PETITION NO. 4644 OF 2012
1 Shree Jai Ambemata Shikshan
Sanstha, Itwara Bazar, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded
Through its Secretary
Balaji S/o Govind Chavan
Aged 42 years, Occ : Agrl.
& Social Work, R/o Nanded.
2 Prashant S/o Namdeo Shinde
Aged 30 years, Occ : Service as
Headmaster in Dnyanmandir
Primary School, Itwara Bazar
Nanded, R/o Nanded. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2 The Director of Education (Primary)
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{29}
wp416812.odt
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Nanded Region, Nanded.
4 The District Collector
Nanded.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Shri S.R. Choukidar S.R., advocate for petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte and Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocates for Respondent No.
5.
WITH
(25) WRIT PETITION NO. 4689 OF 2012
Dnyanvardini Sikshan Sanstha
Near Indira Nagar Zopad Patti
Sanja Road, Osmanabad
Taluka and Dist. Osmanabad
Through its President. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
School Education Department
Maharashtra State
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2 The Chief Secretary
State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{30}
wp416812.odt
3 The Director of Education
Secondary and High Secondary
Maharashtra State
Central Building
Station Road, Pune.
4 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division Latur,
Gandhi Chowk, Latur.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.
6
The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad
Taluka and Dist. Osmanabad.
Respondents.
Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4 & 6.
Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(26) WRIT PETITION NO. 4928 OF 2012
1 Tathagat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Nivli, Taluka Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
Shri Arjunrao s/o Lalujirao Nivlikar
Age 66 years, Occu : Social Worker
R/o Nivli, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded.
2 Sarhad Gandhi Urdu Primary School,
Barhali, Taluka Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through it's Head Master
Shri Mohd. Abdul Moiz S/o Abdul Majid,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{31}
wp416812.odt
Age 38 years, Occu : Service
as Head Master, R/o Barhali,
Taluka Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports
Department, Maharashtra State
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State,
Pune.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Nanded Region, Nanded.
4 The District Collector,
Nanded, District Nanded.
5 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
District Nanded.
Respondents.
Shri I.D. Maniyar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte & Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocates for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(27) WRIT PETITION NO. 5016 OF 2012
1 Nasimabegum Zakiruddin
Age 52 years, Occu : Headmaster,
2 Baliram Sahebrao Kalande,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{32}
wp416812.odt
Age 37 yeasrs, Occu : Teacher
3 Chandrakant s/o Rangnathrao Balore,
Age 48 yers, Occu: Teacher,
4 Shankar Vishwanathrao Nagsakhare
Age 50 years, Occu : Teacher,
5 Chandrakant Munjaji Dongre,
Age 51 years, Occu : Teacher,
6 Ram s/o Pandurang Sahahe
Age 42 years, Occu : Teacher,
7
Munja s/o Manikrao Shegule
Age 42 years, Occu : Teacher,
8 Sayyed Dastu Sayyed Isakmiya
Age 48 years, Occu : Teacher,
9 Sayyed Irshat Sayyed Miskin,
Age 47 years, Occu : Teacher,
10 Sayyed Jani Sayyed Bashamiya
Age 47 years, Occu : Teacher,
11 Pathan Farook Gafar Khan
Age 40 years, Occu : Teacher,
12 Bhagatsing Bapurao Waghmare
Age 37 years, Occu : Teacher,
13 Suchita Balaji Semshete
Age 34 years, Occu : Teacher,
14 Lata Purbhaji Gaikwad,
Age 39 years, Occu : Teacher,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{33}
wp416812.odt
15 P. Sandya Govindrao
Age 39 years, Occu : Teacher,
16 Pralhad Uttamrao Suryawanshi
Age 43 years, Occu : Peon,
17 Shrihari s/o Janardhan Katkade
Age 44 years, Occu : Peon,
18 Dilip Baburao Kale
Age 41 years, Occu : Clerk,
19 Sakharam Shrirangrao Shinde,
Age 42 years, Occu : Clerk,
All r/o Aadarsha Vidya Mandir,
Rahul Nagar/Wagi Road, Parbhani,
District Parbhani. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
School and Education Department,
Maharashtra State Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
2 Chief Secretary
State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3 Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Station Road, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{34}
wp416812.odt
5 Education Officer (Primary)
Z.P.Parbhani.
6 Education Officer (Secondary)
Z.P.Parbhani.
Respondents
Shri S.B.Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 4 & 6.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte & Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocates for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(28) WRIT PETITION NO. 5055 of 2012
1 Priyadarshani Dnyan Sanvardhak Mandal
Kolnur, Taluka Jalkot,
District Latur, Through its Secretary.
2 Laxmibai Primary School
Gopalnagar, Udgir, Taluka Udgir,
District Latur, through its
Head Master. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Collector,
Latur.
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{35}
wp416812.odt
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
Respondents
Shri P.G.Rodge, advocate for petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.B.A.Shinde, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(29) WRIT PETITION NO. 5072 OF 2012
1
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Seva Sanstha
Nalegaon Road, Udgir, Taluka Udgir,
District Latur, Through it's President.
2 Sathi S.M.Joshi, Primary School,
Udgir, Taluka Udgir, Dist. Latur,
Through it's Head Master. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Collector,
Latur.
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{36}
wp416812.odt
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
Respondents
Shri P.G.Rodge, advocate for petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.P.R.Tandale, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(30) WRIT PETITION NO. 5074 OF 2012
1 Rajeshwari Sevabhavi Education Society,
Udgir, Taluka Udgir, District Latur,
Through its Secretary.
2 Rajeshwari Primary School,
Shrinagar Colony, Udgir,
Taluka Udgir, District Latur,
through its Incharge Head Master. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Collector, Latur.
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:30 :::
{37}
wp416812.odt
Respondents
Shri P.G.Rodge, advocate for petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.P.R.Tandale, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(31) WRIT PETITION NO. 5076 OF 2012
1 Dnyan Gangotri Education Society,
Udgir, Taluka Udgir, District Latur
Throught its Secretary.
2 Kamala Nehru Memorial Primary School,
Udgir, Taluka Udgir, Distict Latur,
Throught its Head Master. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Collector,
Latur.
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{38}
wp416812.odt
Shri P.G.Rodge, advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.P.R.Tandale, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(32) WRIT PETITION NO. 5081 OF 2012
1 Sant Gadge Baba, Education Societies
Sant Gadge Baba Primary School,
Vrandavan Colony, Parbhani,
Through its President
Ashok Raghoji Salve
Age 44 years, Occu: President,
R/o C/o Sant Gadge Baba,
Education Societies,
Sant Gadge Baba Primary School,
Vrandawan Colony, Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary
School and Education Department
Maharashtra State Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
2 Chief Secretary
State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya Mumbai.
3 The Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Station Road, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{39}
wp416812.odt
5 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
6 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
Respondents
Shri S.B.Ghatol Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.B.A.Shinde, advocate for Respondent No.6.
ig WITH
(33) WRIT PETITION NO. 5149 OF 2012
1 Sant Namdeo Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Jambhrun Andh (Tanda)
Taluka District Hingoli, Through its President
Age 60 yers, Occu. Social Work
R/o Jambhrun Andh (Tanda),
Taluka and District Hingoli. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Commissioner of Social Welfare
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3 The Director of Vimukta Jati and
Numedic Tribes, Directorate,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Latur Region, Latur.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{40}
wp416812.odt
5 The Special District Social Welfare Officer
Hingoli, District Hingoli.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(34) WRIT PETITION NO. 5170 OF 2012
1 Rehemaniya Talimi Society, Nilanga,
Through its Secretary
Shri Farukh S/o Abdul Kadar Deshmukh
Age 37 yers, Occu. Agrl.
R/o Nilanga, District Latur. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Pune-1.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur,
Taluka and District Latur.
Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{41}
wp416812.odt
Shri V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.P.R.Tandale, advocate for Respondent No.4.
WITH
(35) WRIT PETITION NO. 5187 OF 2012
1 Digambar S/o Nagoral Patil Patkar,
Age 37 yers, Occu. Agrl. & Secretary of
Pragati Shikshan Sanstha, Bahadurpura
Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded.
2
Madhavrao S/o Daulatrao Depkekar
Age 52 years, Occu. Agrl. & President of
Rajiv Shikshan Sanstha,
Dapka Gundopant, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Pune-1.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded.
Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{42}
wp416812.odt
Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte & Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocates for Respondent No.4.
WITH
(36) WRIT PETITION NO. 5192 OF 2012
1 Renukamata Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Udgir, Taluka Udgir, Dist. Latur,
Throught its President.
2 Jai Santoshi Mata Primary Vidyamandir
Sanjay Nagar, Udgir, Taluka Udgir, Dist. Latur
Throught its Head Master. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Collector,
Latur.
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
Respondents
Shri P.G. Rodge, advocate for the petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{43}
wp416812.odt
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.P.R.Tandale, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(37) WRIT PETITION NO. 5195 OF 2012
Mohd. Farooque S/o Mohd. Osman
Age 38 years, Occu. Business and
Secretary of Madrase Noorul Uloom Education
Society, Mahboob Nagar,
Nanded, District Nanded. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Pune-1.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent No.4.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{44}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(38) WRIT PETITION NO. 5196 OF 2012
1 Ganesh S/o Marotirao Patil
Age 23 yers, Occu. Agrl. & Secretary of
Shri Ganesh Shikshan Sanstha, Nivali,
Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Pune-1.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte & Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocates for Respondent No.4.
WITH
(39) WRIT PETITION NO. 5201 OF 2012
1 Marathawada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Atnur, Taluka Jalkot, District Latur.
Throught its Secretary.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{45}
wp416812.odt
2 Kamleshwar Girls Primary School,
Jalkot Road, Udgir, Taluka Udgir,
District Latur,
Throught its Head Master. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2
The Collector,
Latur.
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur. Respondents
Shri P.G.Rodge, advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.P.R.Tandale, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(40) WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2012
1 Manav Vikas Rastriya Shikshan
Prishikshan Prasarak Sanstha,
Daur, Taluka Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded.
Through its President.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{46}
wp416812.odt
2 Raj Sikshan Prasarak Mandal
Naiknagar, Taluka Ardhapur,
District Nanded, through its
Secretary.
3 Kai. Reva Naik Charitable Trust
Naiknagar, Nanded, Taluka and
District Nanded.
Through its Secretary.
4 Kai. Gayabai Education Society
Ekdara, Taluka and Dist. Nanded,
Through its Secretary. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
School Education Department
Maharashtra State
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2 The Chief Secretary
State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3 The Commissioner
Social Welfare Maharashtra State
3, Church Road, 5th Floor,
Pune 1.
4 The Deputy Commissioner
Social Welfare,
Latur Division Latur,
Gandhi Chowk, Latur.
5 The Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare, Nanded,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{47}
wp416812.odt
Taluka and District Nanded.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(41) WRIT PETITION NO. 5211 OF 2012
Dnyanoba S/o Ramrao Kalme
Age 68 years, Occu. Agrl. & Secretary of
Marathawada Shikshan Prasarak Shikshak Mandal
Udgir, Taluka Udgir,
District Latur. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Pune-1.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur,
Taluka and District Latur.
Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{48}
wp416812.odt
Shri V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 4.
WITH
(42) WRIT PETITION NO. 5217 OF 2012
Ramkrishna S/o Jalbhaji Digraskar
Age 58 yers, Occu. Agrl. & Secretary of
Shri Govindeshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Nanded, R/o Nanded, Taluka and District
Nanded. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Pune-1.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte with Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocates for Respondent No.
4.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{49}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(43) WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 2012
Sayyed Imam Janimiya
Age 50 years, Occu : Business & Secretary of
Rashtriya Vikas Bahuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha,
Islampura Latur, Taluka and District Latur. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Pune-1.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent No.4.
WITH
(44) WRIT PETITION NO. 5221 OF 2012
Shri Sevadas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{50}
wp416812.odt
Nanded, District Nanded, Through its Secretary
Shri Narayanrao Ramkishan Jadhav,
Age 56 years, Occu. Social Work,
R/o Nanded, District Nanded. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Commissioner of Social Welfare
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3 The Director of Vimukta Jati and
Numedic Tribes, Directorate,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Latur Region, Latur,
District Latur.
5 The Special District Social Welfare Officer
Nanded, District Nanded.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(45) WRIT PETITION NO. 5234 OF 2012
Vasant Shikshan Sanstha, Parbhani,
Through its President,
Age 66 years, Occu. Agrl.
R/o A/P. Rameshwar Tanda,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{51}
wp416812.odt
Taluka Kalamnuri, District Hingoli. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Commissioner of Social Welfare
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3
The Director of Vimukta Jati and
Numedic Tribes, Directorate,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Latur Region, Latur,
District Latur.
5 The Special District Social Welfare Officer
Hingoli, District Hingoli.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(46) WRIT PETITION NO. 5235 OF 2012
Vasant Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mukhed,
District Nanded, Through its Secretary
Shri Sushant S/o Sheshrao Chavan,
Age 32 years, Occu. Social Work,
R/o Chavanwadi, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded. Petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{52}
wp416812.odt
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Commissioner of Social Welfare
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3 The Director of Vimukta Jati and
Numedic Tribes, Directorate,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Latur Region, Latur,
District Latur.
5 The Special District Social Welfare Officer
Nanded, District Nanded.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(47) WRIT PETITION NO. 5236 OF 2012
Marathawada Pradesh Scheduled Tribes
And Vimukt Jatis and Backward Class
Seva Sangh, Parbhani,
Through its Director
Shri Deepak S/o Ramrao Rathod
Age 39 yers, Occu : Service
R/o Rathod Niwas, Station Road,
Parbhani, Taluka and Dist. Parbhani. Petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{53}
wp416812.odt
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Commissioner of Social Welfare
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3 The Director of Vimukta Jati and
Numedic Tribes, Directorate,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Latur Region, Latur,
District Latur.
5 The Special District Social Welfare Officer
Hingoli, District Hingoli.
Respondents
Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(48) WRIT PETITION NO. 3752 OF 2013
1. Kai. Tatyasaheb R.F. Patil Shikshan Mandal
Deogaon Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon
Through its Secretary,
Amol s/o Chimanrao Patil,
Age 35 years, Occ. Social Work,
r/o Gajanan Housing Society,
Chorghad Road, Parola, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{54}
wp416812.odt
2. Nalanda Prathmik Vidya Mandir,
Bhadgaon, Tq. Bhadgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon
Through its Headmaster Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
School Education and Sports Dept.
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2
The Collector,
Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon
3 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State,
Pune
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Nasik Division, Nasik
5 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon
6 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon Respondents
Mr.S.R.Barlilnge, advocate for petitioners.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGP
for Respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.M.S.Sonawane, advocate for Respondent No.6.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{55}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(49) WRIT PETITION NO. 4080 OF 2013
1 Sudarshan Baburao Khande,
Age 52 years, Occ. Service as Headmaster
2 Ku.Sumangla Baburao Khande
Age 54 years, Occ. Service Asstt. Teacher
3 Anil Baburao Khande,
Age 42 years, Occ. Service Asstt. Teacher
4 Kamalkishor Chirangivlal Jaiswal,
Age 45 years, Occ. Service Asstt. Teacher
5 Murlidhar Dnyanoba Kharat,
Age 30 years, Occ. Service Asstt. Teacher
6 Gajanan Malakarjun Vibuthe,
Age 26 years, Occ. Service Asstt. Teacher
7 Vishnu Chimaji Vaitage,
Age 28 years, Occ. Service Asstt. Teacher
8 Laxman Namdeo Kadam,
Age 25 years, Occ. Service Asstt. Teacher
9 Mahesh Panditrao Landage,
Age 28 years, Occ. Service Asstt. Teacher
10 Ankush Sopanrao Amle,
Age 25 years, Occ. Service as Clerk
11 Suban Pashu Sanaha,
Age 26 years, Occ. Service as
12 Nitin Vasantrao Tayade,
Age 26 years, Occ. Service as
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{56}
wp416812.odt
All r/o c/o Bahujan Shikshan Prasarak Mandals
Dr.Babasaheb Ambetkar School,
Gautam Nagar, Parbhani Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
School and Education Department
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32
2
The Chief Secretary,
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
3 Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary,
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Station Road, Pune
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
5 Education Officer (Primary),
Z. P., Parbhani
6 Education Officer (Secondary),
Z. P., Parbhani,
Dist. Jalgaon
Respondents
Shri.S.B.Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the petitioners
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Shri D.R.Korde,
A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 to 4 & 6.
Mr.B.A.Shinde, advocate for Respondent No.5.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:31 :::
{57}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(50) WRIT PETITION NO. 4101 OF 2012
1 Ravisoot Vyayam Shikshan prabodhan
Sanstha, through its President,
Mr.Bhimchran Anandrao More,
Age 47 years, Occ. Social Worker,
r/o Aurangabad
2 Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya,
Aurangabad through its President
Smt.Bhimawati Laxman Rangari,
Age 60 years, Occ. Social Worker,
r/o as above
3 Dnyansagar Shikshan Sanstha,
CIDCO N-7, Aurangabad through
Its President Keshav V. Waghmare,
Age 62 years, occ. Social Worker,
r/o as above
4 Noorulhuda Primary Educational Society,
Aurangabad through its President
Mohamad Awaiz,
Age 27 years, Occ. Service,
r/o as above. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Educational Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{58}
wp416812.odt
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad
4 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
5 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad Respondents
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for petitioners.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde, A.G.P.
For Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.U.B.Bondar, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(51) WRIT PETITION NO. 4172 OF 2012
Sainath Sevabhavi Sanstha,
Majalgaon, TQ. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed
Through its Secretary,
Shri Balasaheb s/o Sukhdeo Sonwane,
Age 40 years, Occ. Social Work,
r/o Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon,'
Dist. Beed Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2 The District Collector,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{59}
wp416812.odt
3 The District Social Welfare Officer Group A
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani,
Dist. Parbhani
4 The Commissioner,
Apang Kalyan Ayuktalaya,
Maharashtra State,
Office at 3- Church Road, Pune Respondents
Mr.V.C.Patil, advocate for petitioners.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P.
For Respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
Mr.B.S.Mundhe, advocate for Respondent No.3.
WITH
(52) WRIT PETITION NO. 4174 OF 2012
Janvikas Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha,
Renapuri, TQ. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed
Through its President,
Shri Hari s/o Ratanbua Giri,
Age 32 years, Occ. Agril & Social Work,
r/o Renapuri, Tq. Majalgaon, '
Dist. Beed Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2 The District Collector,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani
3 The District Social Welfare Officer Group A
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{60}
wp416812.odt
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani,
Dist. Parbhani
4 The Commissioner,
Apang Kalyan Ayuktalaya,
Maharashtra State,
Office at 3- Church Road, Pune Respondents
Mr.V.C.Patil, advocate for petitioners.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP
for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
Mr.B.S.Mundhe, advocate for Respondent No.3.
ig WITH
(53)WRIT PETITION NO. 4175 OF 2012
Mangalnath Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Majalgaon, TQ. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed
Through its President,
Shri Dnyaneshwar s/o Satwaji Mendke,
Age 38 years, Occ. Social Work,
r/o Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon,'
Dist. Beed Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2 The District Collector,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani
3 The District Social Welfare Officer Group A
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani,
Dist. Parbhani
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{61}
wp416812.odt
4 The Commissioner,
Apang Kalyan Ayuktalaya,
Maharashtra State,
Office at 3- Church Road, Pune Respondents
Mr.V.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP
for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
Mr.B.S.Mundhe, advocate for Respondent No.3.
WITH
(54) WRIT PETITION NO. 4176 OF 2012
Indira Mahila Shikshan Sanstha,
Majalgaon, TQ. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed
Through its Co-Ordinator,
Shri Dr.Sandip s/o Shankarrao Shinde,
Age 32 years, Occ. Social Work,
r/o Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon,'
Dist. Beed Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2 The District Collector,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani
3 The District Social Welfare Officer Group A
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani,
Dist. Parbhani
4 The Commissioner,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{62}
wp416812.odt
Apang Kalyan Ayuktalaya,
Maharashtra State,
Office at 3- Church Road, Pune Respondents
Mr.V.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader and Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP
for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
Mr.B.S.Mundhe, advocate for Respondent No.3.
WITH
(55) WRIT PETITION NO. 4177 OF 2012
Manav Vikas Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha,
Shelapuri, TQ. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed
Through its President,
Shri Hari s/o Ratanbua Giri,
Age 32 years, Occ. Agri. & Social Work,
r/o Shelapuri, Tq. Majalgaon, '
Dist. Beed Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2 The District Collector,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani
3 The District Collector,
Beed, Dist. Beed
4 The District Social Welfare Officer Group A
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani,
Dist. Parbhani
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{63}
wp416812.odt
5 The District Social Welfare Officer Group A
Zilla Parishad, Beed,
Dist. Beed
6 The Commissioner,
Apang Kalyan Ayuktalaya,
Maharashtra State,
Office at 3- Church Road, Pune Respondents
Mr.V.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P.
for Respondents No.1 to 3 & 6.
Mr.B.S.Mundhe, advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr.N.L.Jadhav, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(56) WRIT PETITION NO. 4191 OF 2012
Godawari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Sultanpur, TQ. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed
Through its President,
Shri Ganesh s/o Rambhau Naval,
Age 36 years, Occ. Agri. & Social Work,
r/o Sultanpur, Tq. Majalgaon, '
Dist. Beed Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2 The District Collector,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{64}
wp416812.odt
3 The District Social Welfare Officer Group A
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani,
Dist. Parbhani
4 The Commissioner,
Apang Kalyan Ayuktalaya,
Maharashtra State,
Office at 3- Church Road, Pune Respondents
Mr.V.C.Patill, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P.
For Respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
Mr.B.S.Mundhe, advocate for Respondent No.3.
WITH
(57) WRIT PETITION NO. 4193 OF 2012
1 Shubh Sneha Shikshan Sanstha,
Kranti Nagar, Adalat Road, Aurangabad
Through its President,
Smt. Anita Sudhakar Pagare,
Age 40 years,
r/o Kranti Nagar, Aurangabad
2 Shri Rajureshwar Ganesh Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha,
Aurangabad
Through its Secretary,
Bhagwan s/o Dajirao Zumbad,
Age 43 years, r/o Shiveshwar Colony,
Aditya Nagar, Mayur Park,
Aurangabad Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{65}
wp416812.odt
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Collector,
Aurangabad
3 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad
5 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
6
The Eduycation Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad Respondents
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader and Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P.
for Respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.U.B.Bondar, advocate for Respondent No.6.
WITH
(58) WRIT PETITION NO. 4210 OF 2012
1 Dr. Sunil s/o Balajirao Dhondge,
Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture,
And Secretary of Jai Jawan
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
2 Shivraj Shankarrao Dhongde,
Age 26 years, Occ. Agriculture,
And Secretary of Gadgebaba
Gramin Vikas Pratisthan Kandhar,
Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{66}
wp416812.odt
3 Ravindra s/o Vasantrao Chavan,
Age 31 years, Occ. Agriculture,
And Secretary, Education Society,
Naigaon (Bazar), Dist. Nanded
4 Ashok s/o Gopiraj Patil,
Age 47 years, Occ. Secretary,
Saibaba Sansthan Sainagar,
Dhangarwadi, TQ. & Dist.
Nanded
5 Khushal s/o Shankarrao Malbhoge,
Age 54 years, Occ. Agriculture
and Secretary of Rajiv Gramin
Vikas Mandal, Umardari, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded
6 Vyankatrao s/o Vitthalrao Patil,
Age 65 years, Occ. Agriculture
and Secretary Vidhya Vardhini
Sikshan Sanstha, Dapaka,
(Gundopant), TQ. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
School Education Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2 The Chief Secretary,
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{67}
wp416812.odt
3 Director of Education,
Secondary & Higher Secondary,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building,
Station Road, Pune
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division, Latur
Gandhi Chowk, Latur
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
6
The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded Respondents
Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P.
For Respondents No.1 to 4 & 6.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(59) WRIT PETITION NO. 4211 OF 2012
1 Gramvikas Shikshan Sanstha,
Chikhali, TQ. Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded, through its
Secretary Prataprao s/o Govindrao Patil
Chikhalikar
2 Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Naleshwar, TQ. & Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Narhari Tukaram Pawar
3 Shri Govind Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{68}
wp416812.odt
Kotgyal, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Ranjeet Vithalrao Sawale
4 Priyadarshini Shikshan Sanstha,
Betmogara, TQ. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Vyankatrao Baliram Patil
5 Smt.Itabai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Itgyal (P.M), Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Sanjay Madhavrao Atnure
6
Swatantra Sainik Kai. Digambarrao
Chaudhari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through Its President
Dattatraya Shankarrao Choudhari
7 Fule Samaj Sudharak Samiti
Dwara Sanchalik Mukhed
Dist. Nanded through President
Avinash Madhukarrao Ghate
8 Jawaharlal Nehru Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Umardari, TQ. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Khushal Shankarrao Malbhoge
9 Vimukta Jati Seva Samiti,
Vasantnagar Kotgyal, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded
through its Secretary,
Govindrao Makkaji Rathod
10 Urdu Arabi Anglow Darul Uloom
Garib Nawaz Sanstha, Mukhed,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{69}
wp416812.odt
Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
Shaikh Mahamad Babusab Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
School Education Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2 The Chief Secretary,
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
3 Director of Education,
Secondary & Higher Secondary,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building,
Station Road, Pune
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division, Latur
Gandhi Chowk, Latur
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
6 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded Respondents
Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P.
For Respondents No.1 to 4 & 6.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent No.5.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{70}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(60) WRIT PETITION NO. 4240 OF 2012
Dr.Radhakrishna Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Guntur, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
Shri Madhav s/o Govindrao Mundkar,
Age 36 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o Sambhaji Nagar, Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded Petitioner
Versus
1
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education (Secondary),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division, Latur
4 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Tq. Dist. Nanded Respondents
Shri.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader and Shri S.K.Kadam,
A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent No.4.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{71}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(61) WRIT PETITION NO. 4241 OF 2012
1 Harihar s/o Venkatrao Chivade,
Age 43 years, Occ. Service as
Headmaster,
r/o Kurula, Tq. Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded
2 Uddhav s/o Bapurao Baswade,
Age 35 years, Occ. Service as
Assistant Teacher,
R/o Kurula, Tq. Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Nanded Region, Nanded
4 The District Collector,
Nanded
5 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
6 Shree Shivaji Mofat Shikshan Sanstha,
Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{72}
wp416812.odt
Shri.S.R.Choukidar, advocate for the petitioners
Shri.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader and Mr.D.R.Korde, A.G.P.
For Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(62) WRIT PETITION NO. 4251 OF 2012
1 Jay Baliraja Shikshan Sanstha,
Manaspuri, Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
Shri. Shahurao Janardanrao Gore,
Age 41 years, r/o Manaspuri,
Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
2 The Head Master,
Smt.Chitralekha s/o Vasantrao Jadhav,
Age 36 years,
Sant Tukaram Maharaj Primary School,
Ramrahimnagar, Kandhar,
Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
3 Shri Nagareshwar Shikshan Sanstha,
Kandhar, Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Govind s/o Babarao Naikwade,
Age 47 years, Occ. Agril.,
r/o Near Nagareshwar Talkies, Kandhar,
Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
4 The Head Master,
Basweshwar s/o Nilkanthrao Mangnale,
Age 41 years,
Nagareshwar Primary School,
Kandhar, Tal. Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:32 :::
{73}
wp416812.odt
5 Mahatma Phule Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Shekapur, Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Shivaji Sambhajirao Kendre,
Age 30 years, Occ. Social work,
r/o Shekapur, Tal. Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded
6 The Head Master,
Mohomad Ansaruddin Giyasuddin
Age 34 years,
Smt.Gangabai Balak Mandir and Primary
School, Sathenagar (Chambhar Wesh)
Kandhar, Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
7 Annabhau Sathe Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Smt.Kewalabai Narayan Shirshikar,
Age 68 years, r/o Kandhar,
Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
8 The Head Master,
Rajhans s/o Narayanrao Shahapure,
Age 43 years,
Vidhya Vikas Primary School,
Kandhar, Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Collector,
Nanded
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{74}
wp416812.odt
3 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad
5 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
6 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded Respondents
Shri.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for the petitioners
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader and Mr.D.R.Korde, A.G.P.
for Respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for Respondent No.6.
WITH
(63) WRIT PETITION NO. 4254 OF 2012
1 Dnyanganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Indiranagar, Aurangabad
Through its Secretary,
Shivaji s/o Eknath Nalawade,
Age 62 years, Occ. Social Work,
r/o Indiranagar, New Baijipura,
Aurangabad
2 Indira Prathamik Shala,
Indiranagar, New Baijipura,
Aurangabad
Through its Head Master Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{75}
wp416812.odt
Through Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
(Primary), Aurangabad
4 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Respondents
Mrs.A.S.Rasal, advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGP
for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.U.B.Bondar, advocate for Respondent No.4.
WITH
(64) WRIT PETITION NO. 4256 OF 2012
Dyankung Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Aurangabad
Through its President,
Vijay s/o Radhakrishna Dwarkunde,
Age 39 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Plot No.23, N-9, CIDCO,
Yeshwant Co-Operative Housing Society,
Aurangabad Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Chief Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{76}
wp416812.odt
2 Director of Education (Secondary),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1
3 Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
4 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. Respondents
Shri. Milind M.Joshi , Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde,
advocate for Respondents.
ig WITH
(65) WRIT PETITION NO. 4258 OF 2012
1 Sachin s/o Shankarrao Tale,
Age 35 years, Occ. AGril. &
Secretary of Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha
Yeshwant Nagar, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
2 Sow. Mangla w/o Gunwantrao Patil,
Age 52 years, Occ. Service and
Secretary of Laxmibai Patil Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Nivli, TQ. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
3 Narayanrao s/o Ramkishan Jadhav,
Age 56 years, Occ. Social Work and
Secretary of Shri Sevadas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{77}
wp416812.odt
2 The Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary,
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Pune-1
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division, Latur
4 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Tq. Dist. Nanded
5
The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Latur,
Tq. Dist. Latur Respondents
Shri. V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde,
A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3.
WITH
(66) WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2012
1. Udgir Education Society,
At Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur,
Through its Secretary
2. Dr.Sayyed Mohammad Memorial Urdu
Primary School at Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{78}
wp416812.odt
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Education Officer,
(Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
Near Gandhi Chowk,
Tq. and Dist. Latur. Respondents
Shri.S.R.Kolhare, advocate for the petitioners
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGP
for Respondents.
WITH
(67) WRIT PETITION NO. 4260 OF 2012
1 Late Shivrajji Deshmukh Pratishthan,
Kawatha, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
2 Late Shivrajji Deshmukh Junior College
Kawatha, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its Principal Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 Deputy Director of Education,
Latur
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{79}
wp416812.odt
4 The District Collector,
Nanded
5 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
6 Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Through its Chief Executive Officer. Respondents
Shri. A.N.Nagargoje, advocate for the petitioners
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGP
for Respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(68) WRIT PETITION NO. 4261 OF 2012
The Secretary,
Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Sanguchiwadi, tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through Secretary,
Ramchandra s/o Sukhdeo Yelwad,
Age 52 years, Occ. Agril.,
r/o Sanguchiwadi, TQ. Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education,
State of Maharashtra, Pune
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{80}
wp416812.odt
3 The Deputy Director of Secondary
And Higher Secondary Education,
Latur, Dist. Latur
4 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
5 The Collector,
Nanded. Respondents
Shri. Prakashsingh B.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGP
for Respondents.
WITH
(69) WRIT PETITION NO. 4263 OF 2012
1 Bahujan Hitay Sevabhavi Sanstha,
At Jalkot, Ta. Jalkot, Dist. Latur,
Through its President
2 Moulana Marathi Primary School
At Khair Nagar,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
Through its Head Master
3 Vilas Bhosle Primary School,
At Samata Nagar, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
School and Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{81}
wp416812.odt
2 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. and Dist. Latur
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Near Gandhi Chowk,
Tq. and Dist. Latur Respondents
Shri S.R.Kolhare, advocate for the petitioners
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGP
for Respondents.
ig WITH
(70) WRIT PETITION NO. 4264 OF 2012
Backward Peoples Education Society,
At Wazar, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
School and Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Near Gandhi Chowk,
Tq. and Dist. Latur Respondents
Shri S.R.Kolhare, advocate for the petitioners
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{82}
wp416812.odt
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGP
for Respondents No.1 & 3.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for Respondent No.2.
WITH
(71) WRIT PETITION NO. 4266 OF 2012
1 Tiger Welfare Association,
Beed through its Secretary,
Shaikh Nizam Jainuddin
2 Anjuman Ishatetalim Beed
Through its Secretary
Khan Sabiha Begum d/o False Rahim Khan
3 Alama Hakim Mohd. Yusuf Nayar
Education Society, Beed
Through its Secretary
Mohd. Rashed Salim
4 National Multipurpose Bahu-Uddeshiya Society,
Through its Secretary
Shaikh Rahim Shaikh Razzak
5 Muslim Education and Welfare
Association, Beed
Through its Secretary
Shaikh Samir Ahmed Shaikh Iftekhar
6 Salam Education and Adarsh
Welfare Society, Beed,
Through its Secretary
Aslam Answari Ibrahim Anwari
7 Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha
Beed, through its Secretary
Laxman Kishan Gaikwad Petitioners
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{83}
wp416812.odt
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
School Education Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2 Chief Secretary,
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
3 Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State,
Central Building,
Station Road, Pune
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad
5 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Beed
Tq. and Dist. Beed
6 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Beed
Tq. and Dist. Beed. Respondents
Shri.C.V.Thombre, Advocate for the petitioners
Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGP
for Respondents No.1 to 4 & 6.
Mr.N.L.Jadhav, advocate for Respondent No.5.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{84}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(72) WRIT PETITION NO. 5728 OF 2012
1 Jai Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Janapur, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
Through its Secretary,
Having registered office at
Janapur,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
2 The Head Master,
Tukaram Naik Primary School,
Jalkot Road,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary,
School and Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 001
2 The Education Officer,
(Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. and Dist. Latur
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Near Gandhi Chowk,
Tq. and Dist. Latur. Respondents
Shri S.R.Kolhare, advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 3.
Mr.P.R.Tandale, advocate for Respondent No.2.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{85}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(73) WRIT PETITION NO. 5733 OF 2012
1 Suyog Seva Pratishthan,
Aurangabad, through its Secretary
Shri Babulal Popat Karale,
Age 48 years, Occ. Social Service,
r/o 66, New Gajanan Colony,
Near Rathod Plotting, Aurangabad
2 Shri Vivek Baburao Tavar,
Incharge Head Master,
Suyog Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Patoda, Taluka and
Dist. Aurangabad Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
School Education and Sports Dept.
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2 The Collector,
Aurangabad
3 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad
5 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
6 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{86}
wp416812.odt
Shri.V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents.
WITH
(74) WRIT PETITION NO. 5772 OF 2012
Sant Gadgebaba Shikshan Sanstha,
Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded,
Through its Secretary,
Chetan s/o Daulat Kendre,
Age 31 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded Petitioiner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
2 The Collector,
Nanded
3 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad
5 The Education Officer (Secondary
and Higher Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded Respondents
Shri.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{87}
wp416812.odt
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents.
WITH
(75) WRIT PETITION NO. 5775 OF 2012
Om Shivkrupa Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
Through its Secretary,
Shri. Nandkishor s/o Gangadhar Gaikwad,
Age 46 years,r/o Aurangabad Petitioner
Versus
1
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 The Dy. Director of Education,
(Primary) , Aurangabad
4 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. Respondents
Mrs.A.S.Rasal, advocate for the petitioner
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.
WITH
(76) WRIT PETITION NO. 5776 OF 2012
1 Shri Renuka Magasavargiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Phule Colony, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad,
Through its Secretary,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{88}
wp416812.odt
Mohanlaju Chavan,
Age 55 years, r/o Aurangabad
2 Swa.Aamdar Vasant Kale High School,
Devlai Area, Aurangabad
Through its Head Master Petitiioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2
The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 The Dy. Director of Education,
(Primary) , Aurangabad
4 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad Respondents
Mrs.A.S.Rasal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents.
WITH
(77) WRIT PETITION NO. 5777 OF 2012
Shri Mohatadevi Shikshan Sanstha
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad
Through its Secretary,
Sow Archana w/o Prabhakar Mukhekar,
Age 35 years, r/o Aurangabad Petitioner
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{89}
wp416812.odt
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 The Dy. Director of Education,
(Primary) , Aurangabad
4 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad Respondents
Mrs.A.S.Rasal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents.
WITH
(78) WRIT PETITION NO. 5874 OF 2012
Bal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Aurangabad, running school namely
"Tanvir-Al-Altaf (Urdu) Primary School,
Through Headmistress,
Saphiya Khatun d/o Mohd. Raphat,
Age 56 years, Occ. Service, H.M.
r/o H.No.2-10-44, Ward No.36,
Fazilpura, Harsh Nagar,
Aurangabad Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Chief Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{90}
wp416812.odt
2 Director of Education (Primary),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1
3 Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
4 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad Respondents
Shri.M.M.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.
ig WITH
(79) WRIT PETITION NO. 5875 OF 2012
1 Bharatiya Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur,
Through its Secretary,
Shri Kashinath Basaiyya Monde,
Age 65 years, Occ. Pensioner,
R/o Ramnagar, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur
2 Sanskar Prathamik Vidya Mandir,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
Through its Head Master,
Shri Pralhad Ram Musne,
Age 39 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Degloor Road, Udgir,
TQ. Udgir, Dist. Latur Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{91}
wp416812.odt
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune-1
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division, Latur
4 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Latur
Tq. and Dist. Latur Respondents
Shri Rudrawar S.G., advocate for the petitioners
Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri B.A.Shinde, advocate for Respondent No.4.
WITH
(80) WRIT PETITION NO. 5888 OF 2012
1 Shivaji Bapurao Chavan,
Age 46 years, Occ. Asit Teacher,
Rajashri Shahu Primary School,
Prabudh Nagar, Dist. Parbhani
2 Atul s/o Babuappa Kapse,
Age 37 years, Occ. Assit Teacher,
Rajashri Shahu Primary Vidyalaya,
Prabudh Nagar, Dist. Parbhani
3 Ashok s/o Marotrav Dhage,
Age 50 years, Occ. Head Master,
Rajashri Shahu Primary School,
Prabudh Nagar, Dist. Parbhani
4 Ram s/o Amrut More,
Age 40 years, Occ. Assit Teacher,
Rajashri Shahu Primary School
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:33 :::
{92}
wp416812.odt
Prabudh Nagar, Dist. Parbhani
5 Sanjivini w/o Ananda Shirsath,
Age 48 years, Occ. Assit Teacher,
Rajashri Shahu Primary School,
Prabudh Nagar, Dist. Parbhani Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Chief Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
2
Director of Education (Primary),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1
3 Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
4 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
5 Jagdamba Vidya Prasarak Mandal,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani. Respondents
Shri.R.J.Godbole, Advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(81) WRIT PETITION NO. 5889 OF 2012
1 Samta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary,
Sheshrao s/o Tukaram Kasbe,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{93}
wp416812.odt
Age 60 years, Occ. Social Work,
r/o Ambedkar Nagar, Nanded
Tq. and Dist. Nanded
2 Laxman s/o Marotrao Jadhav,
Aged 50 years, Occ. Service as
Headmaster in Chakravarti Ashok
Primary School, Sainagar, Nanded
R/o Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Nanded Region, Nanded
4 The District Collector,
Nanded
5 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded Respondents
Shri.S.R.Choukidar, advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for Respondent No.5.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{94}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(82) WRIT PETITION NO. 5890 OF 2012
Ahilyadevi Holkar Bahuddeshiya
Sevabhavi Sanstha Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani
Through its Secretary,
Shri Manik Gangadhar Thombare,
Age 32 years, Occ. Agril.,
r/o Pedgaon, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
1
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Region, Latur
4 The District Collector,
Nanded
5 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
6 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded Respondents
Shri.S.R.Choukidar, advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{95}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(83) WRIT PETITION NO. 5891 OF 2012
1 Gangamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Biloli, TQ. Biloli, Dist. Nanded
Through its President,
Poshetty s/o Piraji Narod,
Aged 58 years, Occ. Agril.,
r/o Biloli, Tq. Biloli,
Dist. Nanded
2 Rajkumar s/o Nagorao Ghongade,
Aged 28 years, Occ. Service as
Headmaster in Ravindra
Primary School, Deepnagar,
Nanded, R/o Nanded Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Nanded Region, Nanded
4 The District Collector,
Nanded
5 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{96}
wp416812.odt
Shri.S.R.Choukidar, advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 4.
WITH
(84) WRIT PETITION NO. 5892 OF 2012
1 Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti, Nilanga,
Through its Vice President,
Shri Vijay s/o Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar,
Age 40 years, Occ. Social work,
r/o at Post Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Laturig
2 Maharashtra Prathmik Vidyamandir,
Industrial Area, Shuger Factory,
Jajnoor, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur
Through its Head Master,
Dnyaneshwar s/o Babruwan Kshirsagar,
Age 30 years, Occ. Service,
r/o at post Gour,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune-1,
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division, Latur
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{97}
wp416812.odt
4 The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Latur,
Tq. Dist. Latur Respondents
Shri.S.G.Rudrawar, advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.B.A.Shinde, advocate for Respondent No.4l
WITH
(85) WRIT PETITION NO. 5893 OF 2012
1
Babisaroj Shivaji Lomte,
Aged 44 years, Occ. Service as
Headmistress in Vijaysinharaje
Primary School, Sanja Road,
Indira Nagar, 233 Sub KV Station,
Osmanabad, r/o Osmanabad
2 Sharmila w/o Balasaheb Shinde,
@ Sharmila Eknath Mane,
Aged 38 years, Occ. Service as
Assistant Teacher in Vijaysinharaje
Primary School, Sanja Road,
Indira Nagar, 233 Sub KV Station,
Osmanabad, R/o Osmanabad
3 Yamuna s/o Kashinath Jadhavar,
Age 33 years, Occ. Service as
In Vijaysinharaje Primary School,
Sanja Road, Indira Nagar,
233 Sub KV Station, Osmanabad,
r/o Osmanabad. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{98}
wp416812.odt
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Region, Latur
4 The District Collector,
Osmanabad
5
The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad Respondents
Shri S.R.Choukidar, advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 4.
WITH
(86) WRIT PETITION NO. 5895 OF 2012
1 Priyadarshini Vidya Vikas Mandal,
Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur,
Through its Secretary,
Samb s/o Trimbakappa Mahajan,
Age 59 years, Occ. Agril.,
r/o Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur
2 Rajiv Gandhi Primary School,
Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur,
Through its I/c Head Mistress
Pramila d/o Laxmanrao Kulkarni,
Age 50 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Hanuman Tekadi, Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur Petitioners
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{99}
wp416812.odt
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Director of Education
M. S. Pune
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division , Latur
4
The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Latur Respondents
Shri.S.V.Warad, advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.
WITH
(87) WRIT PETITION NO. 4267 OF 2012
Bhartiya Mahila Vikas Mandal
Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded
Through its President
Malika Begum W/o Shaikh Hamjamiya
age 44 years, occ. Social Work,
R/o Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education & Sports Department
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{100}
wp416812.odt
2 The District Collector
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
3 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. V. M. Mane, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, G.P. for Respondents.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, advocate for respondent no. 3.
ig WITH
(88) WRIT PETITION NO. 4268 OF 2012
1 Moulana Abdul Kallam Azad Vikas Mandal
at Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Latur.
Through its Secretary.
2 Moulana Abdul Kallam Azad
Urdu Primary School
At Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
Through its Head Master. Petitioners
versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School and Education and Sport Department
Mantralaya
Mumbai 400 001.
2 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{101}
wp416812.odt
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Near Gandhi Chowk,
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Respondents
Mr. S. R. Kolhare, advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State.
Mr. P. R. Tandale, advocate for respondent no. 2.
ig WITH
(89) WRIT PETITION NO. 4269 OF 2012
1 Shri Saint Tukaram Maharaj
Bahuudhsiaya Shikshan Sanstha
at Gojegaon
Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary.
2 The Headmaster
Ramchandra Patil Primary School
At Degloor, Tq. Degloor
Dist. Nanded. Petitioners
versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School and Education and Sport Department
Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 001.
2 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. & Dist Nanded.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{102}
wp416812.odt
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Near Gandhi Chowk,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded. Respondents
Mr. S. R. Kolhare, advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for respondent no. 2.
ig WITH
(90) WRIT PETITION NO.4270 OF 2012
1 Sai Baba Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal at Mukhed
Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary.
2 The Headmaster
Saraswati Primary School,
At Rawankola
Tq. Mukhed Dist. Nanded. Petitioners
versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School and Education and Sport Department
Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 001.
2 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{103}
wp416812.odt
Near Gandhi Chowk
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Respondents
Mr. S. R. Kolhare, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, GP for the State.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for respondent no. 2.
WITH
(91) WRIT PETITION NO. 4273 OF 2012
1 Shyam Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Nagalgaon Tanda, Tq. Udgir
Dist. Latur
Through its Secretary.
2 Suwarnamala Deshmukh Primary School
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
through its Head Master. Petitioners
versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Collector,
Latur.
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{104}
wp416812.odt
Zilla Parishad,
Latur. Respondents
Mr. P. G. Rodge, advocate for petitioners
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State.
Mr. P. R. Tandale, advocate for respondent no. 5.
WITH
(92) WRIT PETITION NO. 4274 of 2012
1 Mang Garudi Samaj Vikas Mandal
Udgir, Tq. Udgir
Dist. Latur
Through its President.
2 Annabhau Sathe Dnyanopasak Primary School
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
Through its Head Master. Petitioners
versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Collector,
Latur.
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State,
Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{105}
wp416812.odt
5 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur. Respondents
Mr. P. G. Rodge, advcate for petitioners.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, GP for the State.
Mr. P. R. Tandale, advocate for respondent no. 5.
WITH
(93) WRIT PETITION NO. 4275 OF 2012
1 Janhit Education Society
at Ahmedpur
Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur
Through its Secretary
2 K.G.N. Urdu Primary School
At Ambajogai Road,
Tq. Ambajogai Dist. Latur
Through its Head Master Petitioners
versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
School and Education and Sport Department
Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 001.
2 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Near Gandhi Chowk
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{106}
wp416812.odt
Mr. S. R. Kolhare, advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State.
Mr. P. R. Tandale, advocate for respondent no. 2.
WITH
(94) WRIT PETITION NO. 4276 OF 2012
1 Sant Gadgebaba Shikshan Sanstha
Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar
Dist. Nanded.
Through its Secretary
Chetan s/o Daulat Kendre
age 31 years, occ. service
r/o Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar
Dist. Nanded.
2 Sant Gadgebaba Secondary and
High Secondary School,
Somthana, Tq. Kandhar
Dist. Nanded
Through its Headmaster
Dhondiba s/o Yashwant Nagargoje
age 35 years, occ. service
r/o Sonwala, Tq. Jalkot
Dist. Latur. Petitioners
versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2 The Collector, Nanded.
3 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{107}
wp416812.odt
4 The Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad.
5 The Education Officer (Secondary and
Higher Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. S. S. Thombre, advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State.
ig WITH
(95) WRIT PETITION NO. 4277 OF 2012
1 Virbhadreshwar Shikshan Sanstha
Plot No. 16-B, Shivraj Colony,
Shahnoorwadi, Aurangabad
through its Chairman
Sou. Surekha w/o Shivraj Dumane
age 48 years, occ. social worker
r/o as above.
2 Virbhadreshwar Kannada prathamik
Shala, Plot no. 16-B, Shivraj Colony
Shahnoorwadi, Aurangabad
Through its Head Master Petitioners
versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{108}
wp416812.odt
3 The Dy. Director of Education
(Primary), Aurangabad.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. Respondents
Mrs. A. S. Rasal, advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, GP for the State.
Mr.U.B.Bondar, advocate for Respondent No.4.
WITH
(96) WRIT PETITION NO. 4278 OF 2012
Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Pethwadaj
Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its President
Devidas s/o Sambhaji Karbhari
age 35 years, occ. Agril & Social Work
R/o Pethwadaj, Tq. Kandhar
Dist. Nanded. Petitioner
versus
1 The State of Maharasthra
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya
Mumbai 32.
2 The District Collector
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
3 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. V. M. Mane, advocate for petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:34 :::
{109}
wp416812.odt
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, advocate for respondent no.3.
WITH
(97) WRIT PETITION NO. 4279 OF 2012
1 Mahatma Phule Gramin Vikas
Sevabhai Sanatha, Sonwala,
Taluka Jalkot, District Latur
Through its Secretary
Chandan S/o Shrihari Patil
Age 37 years, Occu. Agrl.
R/o Sonwala, Taluka Jalkot,
District Latur.
2 Ramkrishna Patil Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Devechiwadi,
Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded,
Through its Headmaster,
Madhav S/o Pandurang Damle,
Age 39 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Petwadaj, Taluka Kandhar,
District Nanded.
3 Raje Sambhaji Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Dongarkonali, Taluka Jalkot,
District Latur,
Throught its Headmaster,
Sharad S/o Uttamrao Amge,
Age 29 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Kini (Y), Taluka Udgir,
District Latur. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{110}
wp416812.odt
Through Principal Secretary
School Education and Sports Deptt.
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2 The Collector, Nanded.
3 The Collector, Latur.
4 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
5 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad.
6
The Education Officer (Secondary
and Higher Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. S.S.Thombare, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents.
WITH
(98) WRIT PETITION NO. 4280 OF 2012
1 National Education Society,
At Markhell, Taluka Degloor,
District Nanded.
Through its Secretary.
2 Kai Haji Rahimkhan Urdu
Primary School at Markhel,
Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{111}
wp416812.odt
School Education and Sports Deptt.
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 001.
2 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Taluka and District Nanded.
3 The Deputy Director of Education,
Near Gandhi Chowk,
Taluka and District Latur. Respondents
Mr. S.R.Kolhare, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 3.
Mr. S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent No.2.
WITH
(99) WRIT PETITION NO. 4281 OF 2012
Malhar Sevabhavi Sanstha,
Kawalgaon, Taluka Purna,
District Parbhani,
Through its Secretary
Chandrakant S/o Uttamrao Rode
Age 42 years, Occ: Service & Social work
R/o Kawalgaon, Taluka Purna,
District Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education and Sports Deptt.
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2 The District Collector,
Nanded, District Nanded.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{112}
wp416812.odt
3 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad,
Taluka and District Nanded. Respondents
Mr. V.M.Mane, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(100) WRIT PETITION NO. 4282 OF 2012
Hanuman Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Bori (Kh), Taluka Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
Vyankatrao S/o Kishanrao Mundhe
Age 58 years, Occ: Service & Social work
R/o Bori (Kh), Taluka Kandhar,
District Nanded. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education and Sports Deptt.
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2 The District Collector,
Nanded, District Nanded.
3 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad,
Taluka and District Nanded. Respondents
Mr. V.M.Mane, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{113}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(101) WRIT PETITION NO. 4325 OF 2012
Adv. Rameshji Jadhav Sarvajanik
Vachanalaya, Lohra, Post Mangrul,
Taluka Manwat, District Parbhani,
Through its President
Angad Sahebrao Jadhav
Age 30 years, Occu. Social Worker,
R/o Lohra, Post Mangrul,
Taluka Manwat, District Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2 The Director of Library,
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
3 The Assistant Director of Library,
State of Maharashtra, Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr. S.T.Veer, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(102) WRIT PETITION NO. 4326 OF 2012
1 Aruna Asafali Mahila Mandal
Beed, Taluka and Dist. Beed.
Through its Secretary
Sushila Ganpatrao Morale,
Age 57 years, Occu. Social Work,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{114}
wp416812.odt
R/o Beed, Taluka and Dist. Beed.
2 Sant Tukaram Primary School
Telgaon Road, Beed,
Taluka and District Beed
Through its Headmaster,
Ashruba S/o Dagadu Andhale,
Age 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Beed, Taluka and Dist. Beed.
3 Netaji Subhashchandra Bos
Prathmik Vidyalaya, Malives,
Baradari, Beed, Taluka and Dist. Beed
Throught its Headmaster,
Kaveri D/o Ramdas Nagargoje,
Age 22 years, Occn Service,
R/o Beed, Taluka and Dist. Beed. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary
School Education and Sports Deptt.
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2 The Collector, Beed.
3 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad.
5 The Education Officer ( Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Beed. Respondents
Mr. S.S.Thombare, Advocate for the petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{115}
wp416812.odt
Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents.
Mr.N.L.Jadhav, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(103) WRIT PETITION NO. 4330 OF 2012
1 Mane Shrikrishna Vithal
Age 35 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Sanja Road, Osmanabad.
2 Gaikwad Ratan Maroti
Age 40 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Sanja Road, Osmanabad.
ig Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2 The Chief Secretary
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3 The Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State,
Central Building,
Station Road, Pune.
4 The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division, Latur.
5 The Education Officer ( Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.
6 Dnyanvardhini Shikshan Sanstha
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{116}
wp416812.odt
Sanchalit, Vijaysing Raje Vidhyalaya
(Primary), Sanja Road,
Osmanabad. Respondents
Mr. C.V.Thombre, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
Mr.S.J.Ghute Patil, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
(104) WRIT PETITION NO. 4333 OF 2012
1 Yashodhara Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Vishnunagar Nanded through its
President, Sumantai Hulaji Suryawanshi
Age years, Occ. Social Work,
R/o Vishnunagar, Nanded.
2 Shri Sambhaji Jalbaji Kadam,
Age 60 years, Occ. Social,
Vice President,
" Yashodhara Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Nanded,"
R/o Kailasnagar, Nanded.
3 Smt. Sulochana Moglaji Mukhedkar,
Age years, Occ. Social Work,
Secretary of Yashodhara Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Nanded, R/o Vishnunagar, Nanded.
4 Sow. Nilawati Sambhaji Kadam
Age years, Occu. Household and Social work
Member of Yashodhara Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Nanded.
5 Sou. Chandrabai Devaiyya Kuntenku
Age years, Occ. Household and
Social work, Member of Yashodhara
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{117}
wp416812.odt
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Nanded. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary
School Education and Sports Deptt.
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2 The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3
The Dy. Director of Education
(Primary), Aurangabad.
4 The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad,
Nanded. Respondents
Mr. V.M.Mane, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader, for Respondents No.1 to
3.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent No.4.
WITH
(105) WRIT PETITION NO. 4336 OF 2012
1. Ramesh s/o Baburao Shrungare
aged 57 years, occ. service as Headmaster
in Ahok Primary Schol
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
2. Babu s/o Madhav Sherikar
Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{118}
wp416812.odt
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
3. Subhash s/o Kisan Karanje
Aged 54 years, occ. Service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
4. Shivaji s/o Hariba Bandgar
aged 54 years, occ. service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
5. Mulla Lalahmed Mashakh
aged 55 years, occ. service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
6. Bhanudas s/o Dadaram Sapate
aged 52 years, Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
7. Raziya Abbasmiyan Ujede
aged 53 years, Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
8. Arjun s/o Maroti Shrirame
aged 55 years, Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
9. Shaikh Nasima Shabbir
aged 42 years, occ. Service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
10. Shilpa Uttam Chavan
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{119}
wp416812.odt
aged 24 years, Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
11. Ashok s/o Dattatraya Talikhedkar
aged 50 years, occ. Service as Assistant Teacher
in Ahok Primary School,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education & Sports Department
Maharashtra State
Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
2. The District Collector,
Latur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur. Respondents
Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, GP with Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the
State.
Mr. V. D. Hon, advocate for respondent no. 3.
WITH
(106) WRIT PETITION NO. 4337 OF 2012
1. Sangharatna Vidyalaya Primary School
Jaibhim Nagar Nanded
Dist. Nanded,
through its Head Master
Sou. Rekha Tukaram Kale
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{120}
wp416812.odt
age 40 years, occ. service
R/o Ambedkar Nagar
Pivli Girni, Nanded.
2. Shobha Ramchandra Kamble
age 40 years, occ. Teacher
r/o Swawasti nagar
Nanded.
3. Yashodhara Hariharrao Kokare
age 51 years, occ. Teacher
r/o Labour Colony
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
4.
Chandoba s/o Gangaram Bhalerao
age 50 years, occ. Teacher
r/o Samata Nagar, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
5. Avinash s/o Namdeo Kendre
aged 36 years, occ. teacher
r/o Sambhaji Nagar,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
6. Ramrao s/o Mohanrao Pawar
age 42 years, occ. Teacher
r/o Anand Nagar, Nanded.
7. Harishchandra s/o Govindrao Waghmare
age 52 years, occ. Teacher
r/o Jaibhim Nagar
Nanded, Dist. Nanded. Petitioners
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{121}
wp416812.odt
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Dy. Director of Education
(Primary), Nanded.
4. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mrs. A. S. Rasal, advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, GP with Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the
State.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, advocate for respondent no. 4.
WITH
(107) WRIT PETITION NO.4338 OF 2012
Shri Sant Balgir Maharaj
Shikshan Sanstha's
Shri Dattaprabhu Primary School
Malegaon Road, Taroda (Kd)
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded
Through its Headmaster
Pradeep s/o Gangadhar Nagargoje
age 31 years, Occ. service
r/o Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
School Education and Sports Dept.
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Collector, Nanded.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{122}
wp416812.odt
3. The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4. The Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad.
5. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. V. P. Kadam, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, GP for the State.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for respondent no. 4.
WITH
(108) WRIT PETITION NO. 4340 OF 2012
1. Ashok Primary School,
Vishnunagar Nanded
Through its Head Master
Uttam Digambarrao Wadvale
age 49 years, occ. service
r/o Vishnunagar, Nanded.
2. Sow. Nirmala Namdeorao Chitre
age 50 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Vishnunagar, Nanded.
3. Sow. Panchphula Hariharrao Dhepe
age 45 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Vishnunagar, Nanded.
4. Sow. Sujata Shankarrao Bhandvalkar
age 49 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Dadhichi Nagar, Nanded.
5. Sow. Vatsala Hariharrao Pandharpurkar
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{123}
wp416812.odt
age 54 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Mantirnagar, Nanded.
6. Sow. Jyoti Laxmanrao Maktedar
age 54 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Mahaveer Chowk, Nanded.
7. Vithal Balappa Telange
age 51 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Vishnunagar, Nanded.
8. Sow. Saroj Shivajirao Pathe
age 44 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Vishnunagar, Nanded.
9. Shri Maruti Nagoji Ghorband
age 46 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o CIDCO, Nanded.
10. Sow. Usha Manikrao Shinde
age 43 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Parasnagar, Nanded.
11. Sow. Premala Satwaji Badewad
age 42 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Naiknagar, Nanded.
12. Gajanan Suryakant Rudrawar
age 44 years, occ. Asstt. Teacher
r/o Tirumala Nagar, Nanded.
13. Laxman Lalu Wananje
age 44 years, occ. Clerk
r/o Lalwade, Nanded.
14. Narsing Devayya Kuntelu
age 50 years, occ. Peon
r/ Vishnunagar, Nanded. Petitioners
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{124}
wp416812.odt
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Dy. Director of Education
(Primary) Aurangabad.
4.
The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mrs. A. S. Rasal, advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, advocate for respondent no. 4.
WITH
(109) WRIT PETITION NO. 4341 OF 2012
Shri Ganesh Yuvak Sanstha
Beed through its Head Master
Bagde Ranjana Murlidhar
age 35 years occ. Head Master
at Renukai Primary School
Juna Bazar, Beed. Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
School Education Department
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{125}
wp416812.odt
Mumbai 32.
2. Chief Secretary
State of Maharasthra
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. Director of Education
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State
Central Building
Station Road, Pune.
4. The Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad.
5. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Beed
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
6. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. C. V. Thombre, advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State.
WITH
(110) WRIT PETITION NO. 4344 OF 2012
Godawari Shikshan Sanstha, Raher
Tq. Naigaon (Khairgaon), Dist. Nanded
through the Member of the Managing Committee
Shri Bhausaheb s/o Balasaheb Deshmukh
aged 56 years, occ agri
r/o Rui (Bk), Tq. Naigaon,
Dist. Nanded. Petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{126}
wp416812.odt
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary
to the Government of Maharashtra
in the Department of Education and Sports
Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai 32.
2. The Chief Secretary
to the Government of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai 32.
3. The Director of Eduation
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Station road, Pune.
4. The Director of Education (Primary)
Maharashtra State, Central Building
Station Road, Pune.
5. The Dy. Director of Education,
Latur Division, Gandhi Chowk
Latur.
6. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
7. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. S. S. Choudhary with Mr. N. J. Patil, advocates for petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, GP for the State.
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for respondent nos. 6 & 7.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{127}
wp416812.odt
WITH
(111) WITH PETITION NO. 4357 OF 2012
Shri Sevalal Shikshan Sanstha
Sevadas Nagar, Hanegaon
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded
Through its President
Shri Shankar Kisanrao Rathod
age 55 years, occ. Social Work
r/o Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor
Dist. Nanded. Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education and Sports Department
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya
Mumbai 32.
2. The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Region, Latur.
4. The District Collector
Nanded.
5. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Respondents
Mr. V. G. Golegaonkar, advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, advocate for respondent no. 5.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:35 :::
{128}
wp416812.odt
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Reserved on :16th August, 2013.
Pronounced on : 24th October, 2013.
JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
In this group of petitions, petitioners are questioning
the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated
02.05.2012. Petitioners, before the Court, are either private aided
institutions operating primary schools or employees employed by
such private schools.
3 The preamble of the Government Resolution dated
02.05.2012 records that it is the primary responsibility of the State
Government, under the Indian Constitution, to provide quality
education to the children in the State. In order to make available
facilities of education to the children, the State Government
operates schools through the local self Government as well as by
providing aid to the private managements. The Special Justice
Department as well as Tribal Development Department of the State
of Maharashtra operate Residential schools as well as Ashram
Schools for imparting education to the children. There are about
1,00,000 schools operating in the State imparting education to
{129}
wp416812.odt
about 2 crores students. The School Education Department of the
State makes a budgetary provision of about Rs.29,000 crores for
such purpose out of which about 87% funds are utilised for
payment of salary and pensionary benefits to the teaching and non
teaching employees. The State Government also incurs
expenditure for providing uniforms, books, textbooks and midday
meal to the children studying in such schools.
4 It is recorded in the Resolution that since last few
years, there have been instances brought to the notice in respect of
malpractices committed by the school managements in registering
bogus students with a view to boost the statistics of admissions in
the school with a view to secure permission for opening extra /
additional divisions, for appointment of excess number of teachers
and for claiming inadmissible monetary benefits. Taking notice of
such malpractices, the State Government caused inspection of the
schools operating in Nanded district on experimental basis and the
drive of computing the students strength of the private schools was
conducted between the period 7th to 14th September, 2011. During
the course of inspection, certain startling facts were noticed, such
as:
(i) A huge difference between students' strength recorded by
the school managements and actual presence of the student
population;
{130}
wp416812.odt
(ii) The students shown to be present in the schools were
actually residents of other districts;
(iii)In many cases, same set of the students were shown to be
present during morning and afternoon sessions;
(iv) In many cases, the students were found to be enrolled in
different private schools simultaneously;
(v) The students were offered undue benefits for ensuring their
presence;
(vi)It appears that in some schools physical infrastructure was
temporarily made available during the drive undertaken by
the State in Nanded district.
(vii)About 1,40,195 students were found to be either absent or
that their names were falsely recorded in enrollment
registers.
5 The State Government, on consideration of the report
of inspection conducted in Nanded district, took a decision to
conduct a special drive for verification of student population
studying in private schools and accordingly inspection of the
{131}
wp416812.odt
schools was undertaken by the State Government under the
guidance and supervision of District Collectors of each districts.
The special drive was conducted in each district under the
supervision of District Collector by the State Government
employees excluding employees of Education Department. During
the special drive conducted by the State Government, following
facts emerged:
(i) The percentage of students, who were found absent in the
schools, throughout the State, was 10.16%;
(ii) The percentage of the students who were found to be
absent in private unaided schools, excluding English
medium schools, was 14.11%
(iii) In the school operated on permanent no grant basis, the
percentage of absentism of students was13.26%;
(iv) The percentage of absent students in private aided,
partly aided schools was 10.84%; whereas,
(v) 16.59% students were found absent in the schools
operated by Municipal Corporations/Municipal Councils;
(vi) In the Schools for handicapped students, percentage of
absentism of students was 27.02%;
(vii) In the Schools operated by Social Justice Department:
22.79%; and
(viii) In the Schools operated by Tribal Development
Department, percentage of absentism of students was
13.42% .
{132}
wp416812.odt
(ix)In 9687 schools, the percentage of absentism was
between 22 to 49.99%, whereas, in 2659 schools, the
percentage of absentism was found to be more than 50%.
6 Considering the facts revealed during special
inspection drive, the State Government formed a Committee for
making recommendations under the control of Chief Secretary of
the State of Maharashtra and the said Committee has submitted
17 recommendations to the State. On consideration of the
recommendations submitted by the Committee, the State has
taken a decision to issue following 17 directions:
¼1-1½ ,dkp xkoke/khy izkFkfed 'kkGsyk o
ek/;fed 'kkGsyk b;Rrk ikpoh rs lkrohps oxZ
tksMysys vkgsr v'kk fBdk.kh iqjl
s s fo|kFkhZ miyC/k
ukghr v'kk 'kkGkaps b;Rrk ikpoh rs lkrohps
oxZ ,dkp 'kkGsyk tksmkosr o fogr izfdz;Ps ;k
ek/;ekrwu oxZ can d:u lacaf/kr f'k{kdkaps vU;=
lek;kstu dj.;kr ;kos-
¼1-2½ bFkwu iq<s izkFkfed o ek/;fed 'kkGsrhy
f'k{kd fuf'prhlkBh fnukad 15 tqySpk iV fopkjkr
?ksryk tkok-
¼1-3½ T;k 'kkGkarhy fo|kFkhZ vuqifLFkrh 20
Vdds is{kk tkLr vkgs] v'kk 'kkGkaph ekU;rk jn~n
dka dj.;kr ;sow u;s] ;kckcr f'k{k.k foHkkxkekQZr
dkj.ks nk[kok uksVhl nsowu] ;ksX; rh dk;Zokgh
dj.;kr ;koh-
{133}
wp416812.odt
¼1-4½ T;k 'kkGkarhy fo|kFkhZ vuqifLFkrh 50
Vdds is{kk tkLr vkgs] v'kk laLFksfo:/n o
eq[;k/;kid ;kaps fo:/n QkStnkjh Lo:ikps xqUgs
nk[ky dj.;kph dkjokbZ dj.;kr ;koh- o fofgr
i/nrhus R;k 'kkGkaph ekU;rk dk<wu ?ks.;kph
dk;Zokgh lq: djkoh-
¼1-5½ 50 Vdds i;Zar vuqifLFkrh vlysY;k
'kkGsrhy f'k{[email protected]'k{kdsrj deZpk&;kapps dsoG
vU; 'kkGkae/;s lek;kstu dj.;kr ;kos-
¼1-6½ 50 Vdds is{kk tkLr fo|kFkhZ vuqifLFkrh
vlysY;k 'kkGkaph lu 2011&12 ;k o"kkZph lap
ekU;rk ns.;kiwohZ] T;k vf/kdk&;kauh 'kkGsph
iViMrkG.kh dsyh vlsy] R;k
vf/[email protected] ;kaps fo:/n foHkkxh; pkSd'kh
dj.;kr ;koh o vko';d okVY;kl R;kauk fuyafcr
dj.;kr ;kos-
¼1-7½ 50 Vdds is{kk tkLr fo|kFkhZ vuqifLFkrh
vlysY;k 'kkGkae/khy dk;Zjr f'k{kd @ f'k{kdsrj
deZpk&;kauk vfrfjDr Bjowu R;kaps lek;kstu u
djrk R;kaP;k lsok lekIr dj.;kr ;kO;kr-
¼1-8½ vfrfjDr Bjysys f'k{kd 100 Vdds
lek;ksftr >kY;kf'kok; [kktxh fdaok LFkkfud
LojkT; laLFkkaP;k 'kkGkae/;s uohu f'k{kd o
f'k{kdsrj deZpk&;kaph Hkjrh d: u;s-
¼1-9½ ewG iVuksan.kh is{kk T;k 'kkGkae/;s
iViMrkG.khP;k osGh tkLr fo|kFkhZ vk<Gwu vkys
vkgsr] v'kk 'kkGkauk dkj.ks nk[kok uksVhl nsowu
{134}
wp416812.odt
[kqyklk ?ks.;kr ;kok-
¼1-10½ iq<hy 'kS{kf.kd o"kkZi;Zar izR;sd
'kkGsrhy f'k{kd o fo|kFkhZ ;kauk ;qvk;Mh ¼UID½
pk dzekad ns.;kph dk;Zokgh iw.kZ djkoh- ;qvk;Mh
¼UID½ pk dzekad fnY;kf'kok; 'kkGkauk lu
2013&14 ;k 'kS{kf.kd o"kkZiklwu vuqnku ns.;kr
;sow u;s- ;klkBh ftYgkf/kdk&;kauh fo'ks"k eksfge
gkrh ?;koh-
¼1-11½ lkekftd U;k; o vkfnoklh fodkl
foHkkxkdMwu R;kaps vf/kiR;k[kkyhy vkJe'kkGkaph
osxG;k ;a=.ksekQZr rqrZ Qsjrikl.kh dj.;kr ;sow
u;s-
¼1-12½ ftYgkf/kdkjh ;kauh 'kklukl ikBfoysyk
fo'ks"k iViMrkG.kh vgoky f'k{k.k lapkyd
¼izkFkfed½ ;kauh lhycan d:u vkiY;k rkC;kr
Bsokok-
¼1-13½ T;k 'kkGkaph ekU;rk dk<.;kr ;sbZy
fdaok 'kkGk l|%fLFkrhr can vkgsr v'kk 'kkGkaP;k
fo|kF;kzaps uftdP;k brj 'kkGkae/;s lek;kstu
dj.;kr ;kos-
¼1-14½ lkekftd U;k; foHkkxkekQZr eatwj
dj.;kr ;sr vlysY;k uohu vkJe 'kkGkauk ;kiq<s
b;Rrk ifgyh iklwu ekU;rk u nsrk b;Rrk ikpoh
iklwu ekU;rk |koh-
¼1-15½ jkT;krhy loZ [kktxh vuqnkfur] fouk
vuqnkfur] LFkkfud LojkT; laLFksP;k
[email protected]/;[email protected] ek/;fed 'kkGk o
{135}
wp416812.odt
lkekftd U;k;] vkfnoklh fodkl foHkkxkP;k
v[kR;kjhrhy vkJe 'kkGk rlsp baxzth ek/;ekP;k
[email protected]/;[email protected] ek/;fed 'kkGk ;kaph
ftYgkf/kdk&;kaekQZr njo"khZ fu;fer vkdfLed
rikl.kh dj.;kr ;koh o rikl.kh vgoky lacaf/kr
foHkkxkP;k f'k{k.k lapkyd ¼izkFkfed½] vk;qDr]
lekt dY;k.k vk;qDr] vkfnoklh ;kauk lknj
djkok- ;kckcrpk 'kklu fu.kZ; lacaf/kr
foHkkxkdMwu fuxZfer dj.;kr ;kok- ;klkBh
ftYgkf/kdk&;kauk njo"khZ vko';d fu/kh
ns.;kr ;kok-
¼1-16½ [email protected] "kkGkrhy
vuqifLFkrh eksB;k izek.kkr vk<GY;kus 10 Vdds
tkLr vuqifLFkrh vklY;kl R;k fBdk.kP;k lacaf/kr
vf/kdk&;kaps Li'Vhdj.k ?ks.;kr ;kos-
¼1-17½ ojhy fu.kZ;kaph dkVsdksji.ks
vaeyctko.kh dj.;klkBh eq[; lfpo ;kauh
osGksoG
s h ;ksX; rh dk;Zokgh djkoh-
7 The petitioners contend that directives contained in
the Government Resolution are contrary to the provisions of (i)
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for
short, "the RTE Act") and the Rules framed by the State of
Maharashtra thereunder; (ii) Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947
and the Rules framed thereunder; (iii) Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and
the Rules framed thereunder; and (iv) the Secondary School Code.
{136}
wp416812.odt
8 Clause 1.2 of the Resolution provides that for
determining the strength of teachers in primary and secondary
schools, the student strength in the school as on 15th July shall be
taken into account. Clause 1.3 provides for taking action of de-
recognition of such of those schools wherein absentism of the
students is more than 20%. It is directed that appropriate action
be taken after issuing a show cause notice to such institutions.
Clause 1.4 of the Resolution provides that so far as the schools
wherein absentism of students is found to be more than 50%,
measures for launching criminal prosecution against such
institutions and Head Masters shall be initiated and recognition of
such schools be withdrawn by following prescribed procedure.
Only such of the employees employed in the schools wherein
absentism of the students is found to be less than 50%, shall be
accommodated in other schools as provided under clause 1.5,
whereas, clause 1.7 provides that teaching as well as non teaching
staff in the schools wherein absentism of the students is found to
be more than 50%, shall be declared surplus and instead of
accommodating them in any other school, their services be
terminated. Clause 1.8 of the Resolutions directs management of
the private schools as well as schools operated by local self
Government not to appoint teaching and non teaching staff without
ensuring accommodation of surplus teachers. Clause 1.11 of the
Resolution provides that the schools operated by the Special
{137}
wp416812.odt
Justice Department as well as Tribal Development Department
shall not be inspected by a separate cell at the present. A directive
has been issued to the District Collector to make financial
provision for causing surprise inspection of the schools operating
in the District every year. It is directed in view of clause 1.16 to call
for explanation of concerned officials of the Municipal Corporations
as well as Municipal Councils wherein absentism of the students
in the schools operated by such local bodies is found to be more
than 10%.
9 Petitioners contend that services of the employees
employed in private schools are governed by the provisions of
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. There are
provisions contained in the Act as well as Rules in respect of
initiating departmental proceedings for the misconduct committed
by a teacher or member of non teaching staff. The Rules provide a
detailed procedure for initiating disciplinary action against an
employee of a private school and for imposition of major and minor
penalties. The services of an employee of a private school cannot
be dispensed with without observing procedure prescribed under
the Act of 1977 and Rules framed thereunder. The Act also makes
a provision for declaring employees of private schools surplus and
for accommodation of such surplus teachers. Rules 25A and 26
provide for absorption of retrenched or surplus employees
{138}
wp416812.odt
functioning in a private school. A permanent employee may be
retrenched from service by the management on account of
reduction of establishment owing to reduction in the number of
classes or divisions, fall in the number of pupils resulting in
reduction of establishments; etc. Rule 26, provides for absorption
of retrenched employee in the manner provided in the rule. An
employee terminated from service on account of abolition of posts
is also required to be taken on waiting list maintained by the
Education Officer or by the Deputy Director of Education in case of
Higher Secondary School for making recommendations to the
management of newly opened aided school or existing aided
schools for absorption. The services of an employee functioning in
a private school cannot be brought to an end merely because of
absentism of the students revealed during inspection to be more
than 20% or 50%, as the case may be. The services of the
permanent teacher employed in a private school can be brought to
an end only on account of misconduct or any other reason
provided under the Act and Rules and subject to observance of
procedure provided under the Rules. The directives issued in
paragraph 1.3 and 1.7 are contrary to the provisions of the Act of
1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is also contended that
Head Master of the School cannot be held responsible and cannot
be prosecuted for the reason of absentism of students if found to
be more than 50%, during the course of inspection, undertaken as
a special drive. A sweeping direction contained in clause 1.4 is not
{139}
wp416812.odt
contemplated by the Act of 1977 or any other Enactment i.e.
Bombay Primary Education Act, Secondary School Code or RTE
Act. The recognition of the school is also required to be withdrawn
in the manner provided under the RTE Act and the Rules framed
thereunder and as such, directives contained in paragraph 1.4 of
the Resolution are extraneous to the provisions of the RTE Act and
the Rules, so also Bombay Primary Education Act and Secondary
School Code. It is also urged that the schools operated by the
private managements are discriminated, whereas, no action, is
proposed against the schools operated by the local authorities and
the employees functioning in such schools.
10 The learned Government Pleader, appearing for
Respondent-State, supported the decision taken by the State
Government and contended that the unprecedented situation is
created by the operators of the private schools warranting
extraordinary measures. It is contended that the surprise
inspection conducted under the supervision of District Collector of
each districts revealed mind boggling facts. The misdeeds
committed by the private managements operating the schools have
been brought to the light. The facts and features relating to
attendance of students revealed during the surprise inspections
called for strict measures, prompted the Government to issue
directions by way of issuance of Resolution dated 02.05.2012.
{140}
wp416812.odt
11 It is contended that the decision taken by the
Government to cause special inspection of schools to assess
attendance of students in the schools in the State, was subject
matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.7687 of 2011. The Division
Bench of this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has
observed that the circular issued by the Government on
19.09.2011 by which the State Government had directed that in the
entire State, there shall be a special drive to verify the strength of
the students who are actually taking education in the schools
which are receiving grant-in-aid or not receiving grant-in-aid, is
not in conflict with the Government Resolution dated 07.10.2003.
The Division Bench has ruled that the circular is in effect issued
for achieving the purpose provided in the aforesaid Government
Resolution. It is, thus, contended that since this Court has
approved the special drive undertaken by the State Government for
counting the exact number of students actually taking education
in the schools, no interference need be caused in respect of the
directives contained in the Government Resolution impugned in
the petition, since such directives are issued after collecting data
and facts and figures during surprise inspection. The
Respondents, as such, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
12 The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 is enacted by the Union of India and has
come into force on 01.04.2010. Article 21-A of the Constitution
{141}
wp416812.odt
provides for free and compulsory education to all children in the
age group of six to fourteen years as Fundamental Right in such a
manner as the State may, by law, determine. Consequently, the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2008, is
introduced which seeks to provide:
(a) that every child has a right to be provided full
time elementary education of satisfactory and
equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies
certain essential norms and standards;
(b)
"compulsory education" casts an obligation on
the appropriate Government to provide and ensure
admission, attendance and completion of elementary
education;
(c) "free education" means that no child, other than
a child who has been admitted by his or her parents to
a school which is not supported by the appropriate
Government, shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or
charges or expenses which may prevent him or her
from pursuing and completing elementary education;
(d) the duties and responsibilities of the appropriate
Governments, local authorities, parents, schools and
teachers in providing free and compulsory education;
and
(e) a system for protection of the right of children
and a decentralized grievance redressal mechanism.
13 The Act has been brought into existence in furtherance
of achieving Constitutional obligation under Article 21-A. Section 3
{142}
wp416812.odt
of the Act provides that every child of the age of six to fourteen
years, including a child referred to in clause (d) and (e) of Section 2
i.e. child belonging to disadvantaged group and child belonging to
weaker section shall have a right to free and compulsory education
in a neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education.
Section 8 of the Act provides that the appropriate Government
shall provide free and compulsory elementary education to every
child. The duties of the local authority have been prescribed under
Section 9 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act clarifies extent of
school's responsibility for providing free and compulsory
education. Section 13 of the Act provides that no capitation fee be
levied or screening procedure be adopted for admitting a child to
primary school. Section 15 of the Act mandates that a child shall
be admitted in a school at the commencement of the academic year
or within such extended period as may be prescribed; provided
that no child shall be denied admission if such admission is
sought subsequent to the extended period. It is further provided
that any child admitted after the extended period shall complete
his studies in such manner as may be prescribed by the
appropriate Government. The norms and standards for school are
prescribed under Section 19 of the Act. It is provided that no
school shall be established, or recognised, under Section 18,
unless it fulfils the norms and standards specified in the Schedule.
Section 19 reads thus:
{143}
wp416812.odt
19 Norms and standards for school- (1) No school
shall be established or recognised, under section 18,
unless it fulfils the norms and standards specified in
Schedule.
(2) Where a school established before the
commencement of this Act does not fulfil the norms
and standards specified in the Schedule, it shall take
steps to fulfil such norms and standards at its own
expenses, within a period of three years from the date
of such commencement.
(3) Where a school fails to fulfil the norms and
standards within the period specified under sub-
section (2), the authority prescribed under sub-section
(1) of section 18 shall withdraw recognition granted to
such school in the manner specified under sub-section
(3) thereof.
(4) With effect from the date of withdrawal of
recognition under sub-section (3), no school shall
continue to function.
(5) Any person who continues to run a school after
the recognition is withdrawn, shall be liable to fine
which may extend to one lakh rupees and in case of
continuing contraventions, to a fine of ten thousand
rupees for each day during which such contravention
continues.
14 Section 23 relates to Qualifications for appointment
and terms and conditions of service of teachers, which reads thus:
23 Qualifications for appointment and terms and
conditions of service of teachers:- (1) Any person
possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down
{144}
wp416812.odt
by an academic authority, authorised by the Central
Government, by notification, shall be eligible for
appointment as a teacher.
(2) Where a State does not have adequate
institutions offering courses or training in teacher
education, or teachers possessing minimum
qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are
not available in sufficient numbers, the Central
Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification,
relax the minimum qualifications required for
appointment as a teacher, for such period not
exceeding five years, as may be specified in that
notification:
Provided that a teacher who, at the
commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum
qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall
acquire such minimum qualifications within a period
of five years.
(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the
terms and conditions of service of teachers shall be
such as may be prescribed.
15 The duties of teachers and redressal of grievances is
provided under Section 24 of the Act, which reads thus:
24 Duties of teachers and redressal of grievances:-
(1) a teacher appointed under sub-section (1) of section
23 shall perform the following duties, namely:-
(a) maintain regularity and punctuality in attending
school;
(b) conduct and complete the curriculum in
{145}
wp416812.odt
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of
section 29;
(c) complete entire curriculum within the specified
time;
(d) assess the learning ability of each child and
accordingly supplement additional instructions, if any,
as required;
(e) hold regular meetings with parents and
guardians and apprise them about the regularity in
attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning
and any other relevant information about the child;
and
(f) perform such other duties as may be prescribed.
(2) A teacher committing default in performance of
duties specified in sub-section (1), shall be liable to
disciplinary action under the service rules applicable
to him or her;
Provided that before taking such disciplinary
action, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be
afforded to such teacher.
(3) The grievances, if any, of the teacher shall be
redressed in such manner as may be prescribed.
16 Section 25 of the Act is in respect of Pupil-teacher
ratio, whereas, Section 26 relates to filling up vacancies of
teachers. Section 27 of the Act lays down prohibition of
deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes. Section 38
of the Act provides for rule making powers of the appropriate
{146}
wp416812.odt
Government in respect of the matters provided therein.
17 The State of Maharashtra, in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 38 of the RTE Act of 2009, has framed
Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Rules, 2011. Part VI relates to teachers. It is prescribed that the
academic authority notified in pursuance of sub-section (1) of
section 23, shall within three months of such notification, lay
down the minimum qualifications for persons to be eligible for
appointment as a teacher in an elementary school. Salary and
allowances and conditions of service of teachers for purpose of
section 23(3) of the Act is provided under Rule 18, whereas, duties
to be performed by teachers for the purpose of clause (f) to section
24(1) of the Act is provided under Rule 19. The Grievance
Redressal mechanism for teachers for the purposes of section 24(3)
is provided under Rule 20. Rule 21 of the Rules is in respect of
maintaining Pupil-Teacher Ratio in each school for purposes of
section 25. The relevant Rules are as quoted below:
11 Recognition of schools for purposes of
Section 18. (1) Every school, other than a school
established by the Government or the Local Authority,
established before the commencement of this Act (or
any school which has received permission, from, or
been recognized by the Government), shall make a self
declaration within a period of three months from the
date of commencement of this Act in Form No.1 to the
concerned District Education Officer regarding its
{147}
wp416812.odt
compliance or otherwise with the norms and standards
prescribed in the Schedule, and that the school fulfills
the following conditions. In case, a school is being run
without recognition from the Government without
permission before or even after the commencement of
this Act, the school shall be punishable under section
18(5) of the Act, by a fine and shall also face legal
action,-
(a) Conditions that the school is run by a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
(21 of 1860), or under the Bombay Public Trusts Act,
1950 (Bom. XXIV of 1950);
(b)
that the school is not run for profit of any
individual, group or association of individuals or any
other persons;
(c) that the school confirms to the values enshrined
in the Constitution of India;
(d) that the school buildings and other structures as
well as the grounds are used only for the purposes of
education and skill development;
(e) that the school is open to inspection by any
officer authorized by the State Government or the
Local Authority;
(f) that the school furnishes such reports and
information as may be required by the Director of
Education or District Education Officer from time to
time and complies with such instructions of the State
Government or the Local Authority, as may be issued
to secure the continued fulfillment of the conditions of
recognition or the removal of deficiencies in working of
the school;
{148}
wp416812.odt
(2) Every self declaration received in Form-1 shall be
placed by the District Education Officer in public
domain displaying it on a notice board, website, etc.,
within fifteen days of its receipt.
(3) The District Education Officer shall conduct on-
site inspection of such schools which claim in Form-1
to fulfill the norms and standards prescribed in the
Schedule and the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1)
within three months of the receipt of the self
declaration. The said Officer shall personally verified
either by himself or through an officer subordinate to
him about such fulfillment and prepare a report in the
prescribed form.
(4) After the inspection referred to in sub-rule (3) is
carried out, the inspection report shall be placed by
the District Education Officer in public domain, web-
site and schools found to be conforming to the norms,
standards prescribed in the schedule and the
conditions shall be granted recognition by the District
Education Officer in Form-2 within a period of 15 days
from the date of inspection.
(5) Schools that do not conform to the norms,
prescribed in the Schedule and conditions mentioned
in sub-rule (1), shall be listed by the District Education
Officer through a public order to this effect, and any
time within the next two and a half years, after the
report under sub-rule (3) is submitted to the
authorities such schools may apply to the District
Education Officer for an on-site inspection for grant of
recognition.
(6) The Schools which fail to confirm to the norms
and standards prescribed in the Schedule and
conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1) after three years
from the commencement of the Act, shall cease to
{149}
wp416812.odt
function.
(7) Every school, other than a school established by
the Government or the Local Authority, established
before the commencement of the Act for any school
which has received permission from, or been
recognized by the Government), shall conform to the
norms and standards prescribed in the Schedule and
conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1) in order to qualify
for recognition. It is the responsibility of the State
Government to ensure that the schools established,
owned or controlled by State Government or local
authority shall comply with the norms and standards
prescribed in the Schedule and conditions mentioned
in sub-rule (1) within a period of 3 years from the
commencement of the Act.
(8) All prevalent rules of the Government regarding
grant or refusal of recognition of schools shall continue
to be in force. Also, the schools shall be recognized or
granted permission if they conform to the required
norms standards prescribed in the Schedule and
conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1) only in those
places where it is found to be an actual need, on the
basis of school mapping.
(9) Non-Government Organisations and other
institutions shall be encouraged to participate in
improving the quality of infrastructure and quality of
education in schools run by Local Authorities.
(10) Comprehensive system of evaluation for teachers
and schools shall be implemented. The evaluation may
be done by various ways like self evaluation, peer
evaluation, etc. External evaluation shall also be
conducted periodically after such time and time
elapsed between two such evaluation shall not exceed
more than three years.
{150}
wp416812.odt
12 Withdrawal of recognition to schools for the
purposes of sections 12(3) and 18(3):- (1) Where the
District Education Officer on his own motion, or on
any representation received from any person, has
reason to believe, that a school recognised under rule
11, has violated one or more of the conditions for grant
of recognition or has failed to fulfill the norms and
standards prescribed in the Schedule, he shall record
the reasons for his belief and then,-
(a) issue a notice to the school, specifying the
violations of the conditions of grant of recognition and
seek its explanation within one months.
(b) In case the explanation is not found to be
satisfactory or no explanation is received within the
stipulated time period, the District Education Officer
may cause an inspection of the school, to be conducted
by a Committee of three to five members comprising of
educationists, civil society representatives, media, and
government representatives, which shall make due
inquiry and submit its Report, along with its
recommendations for continuation of recognition or its
withdrawal, to the District Education Officer.
(c) The District Education Officer shall forward the
Report to the Director of School Education (Primary),
along with his comments, a copy of the report may be
forwarded for information to the State Commission for
Protection of Child Rights.
(2) The School Education and Sports Department,
shall, convey its decision to the District Education
Officer through the Directorate of Education.
(3) The District Education Officer shall, on the basis
of the decision of the School Education and Sports
{151}
wp416812.odt
Department, pass an order canceling the recognition
granted to the school. The order of de-recognition
shall be operative from the immediately succeeding
academic year and shall specify the neighborhood
schools in which the children of the de-recognised
schools shall be admitted. The District Education
Officer shall also give the concerned neighborhood
schools, in advance, a list of the children to be
admitted, with detailed information about the children.
20 Grievance Redressal mechanism for teachers
for purposes of section 24(3):- (1) A teacher or
employee of a school other than a school run by
Government or Local Authority, who is aggrieved by
any of the decisions of the management, regarding his
or her service conditions or a teacher or an employee,-
(a) who is dismissed or removed or whose services
are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank, by
the order passed by the management; or
(b) who is superseded by the management while
making an appointment to any post by promotion and
shall have a right of appeal and may appeal against
such order or supersession to the tribunal constituted
under section 8 of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act,
1977 (Mah. III of 1978).
(2) The appeals so preferred shall be governed by
the provisions of sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (Mah. III of
1978) and the Rules 39 and 43 of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1981.
{152}
wp416812.odt
21 Maintaining Pupil-Teacher Ratio in each
school for the purposes of section 25. (1) The
Government or the Local Authority, as the case may
be, may redeploy teachers of schools having a strength
in excess of the sanctioned strength on 31st of July
every year.
(2) If any officer or employee of the Government or
the Local Authority violating the provisions of sub-
section (2) of section 25, he or she shall be personally
liable for a disciplinary action.
18 It is to be noted that on consideration of the provisions
of the Act of 2009 as well as Rules framed by the State of
Maharashtra in the year 2011, it is revealed that no provision has
been made for de-recognition of the school on account of
absentism of the students revealed during the course of inspection,
to be more than 50% nor there is any provision for taking action
against such private schools on account of absentism of the
students if found to be beyond 20%. Rule 11 of the Rules provides
for recognition of the schools and sub-rule (6) of Rule 11 provides
that if the school fails to conform to the norms and standards
prescribed in the Schedule and conditions mentioned in sub-rule
(1) after three years from the commencement of the Act, shall cease
to function. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 do not provide for taking any
action on account of absentism of students. Sub-rule (8) of Rule
11 provides that all prevalent rules of the Government regarding
grant or refusal of recognition of schools shall continue to be in
force. Also, the schools shall be recognized or granted permission
{153}
wp416812.odt
if they conform to the required norms and standards prescribed in
the Schedule and conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1) only in
those places where it is found to be an actual need, on the basis of
school mapping. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 11 provides that a
comprehensive system of evaluation for teachers and schools shall
be implemented. The withdrawal of recognition shall have to be
resorted to in observance of the procedure prescribed under Rule
12. Except as provided under the Act and Rules, recognition of the
school cannot be withdrawn.
19 The directive contained in clause 1.4 of the
Government Resolution is in contravention of the provisions of the
Act since there is no provision made in the Act or the Rules for
withdrawal of recognition on account of absentism of the students
beyond 50%. Similar is the case in respect of directive contained
in clause 1.3 of the impugned Government Resolution. Rule 12
provides that where the District Education Officer, on his own
motion, or on any representation received from any person, has
reason to believe, that a school recognised under rule 11, has
violated one or more of the conditions for grant of recognition or
has failed to fulfill the norms and standards prescribed in the
Schedule, the District Education Officer shall act in the manner
prescribed under the said rule, issue order of withdrawal of
recognition. The grounds referred to in the Government Resolution
in respect of absentism of the students beyond 50% or 20% do not
{154}
wp416812.odt
call for action of withdrawal of recognition within the ambit of
Section 18 of the Act of 2009 or the Rules framed by the State
Government in that behalf.
20 The duties of teachers and redressal of grievances is
provided under Section 24 of the Act. A teacher is required to
perform following duties, namely:-
(a) maintain regularity and punctuality in attending
school;
(b) conduct and complete the curriculum in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of
section 29;
(c) complete entire curriculum within the specified
time;
(d) assess the learning ability of each child and
accordingly supplement additional instructions, if any,
as required;
(e) hold regular meetings with parents and
guardians and apprise them about the regularity in
attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning
and any other relevant information about the child,
and
(f) perform such other duties as may be prescribed.
21 Sub-section (2) of Section 24 provides that a teacher
committing default in performance of duties specified in sub-
{155}
wp416812.odt
section (1), shall be liable to disciplinary action under the service
rules applicable to him or her, provided that before taking such
disciplinary action, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be
afforded to such teacher. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 provides
that grievances, if any, of such teacher, shall be redressed in such
manner as may be prescribed.
22 Rule 19 of the Rules provides duties to be performed
by teachers for the purpose of clause (f) to section 24(1) and those
are:
(a) participation in training programmes;
(b) participation in curriculum formulation and
development of syllabi, training modules, text book
development and development of evaluations;
(c) identification of out of school children within the
locality and ensuring their enrollment in the
neighbourhood school.
(d) Ensuring attendance of children enrolled in the
school.
23 The Grievance Redressal mechanism of teachers for
the purposes of Section 24(3) is provided under Rule 20 of the
Rules of 2011. Sub-rule (2) thereof provides that the appeals
preferred challenging the disciplinary action taken by the
management shall be governed by provisions of Sections 8, 9, 10,
{156}
wp416812.odt
11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules 39 and 43
of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981.
24 Section 4(2) of Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, provides that
every employee of a private school shall be governed by such Code
of Conduct, as may be prescribed. On the violation of any
provision of such Code of Conduct, the employee shall be liable to
disciplinary action after conducting an enquiry, in such manner as
may be prescribed. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 provides that no
employee of a private school shall be suspended, dismissed or
removed or his services shall not be otherwise terminated or he
shall not be reduced in rank by the Management, except in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made in
that behalf. Section 8 of the MEPS Act is in respect of constitution
of School Tribunals, whereas, right of appeal to Tribunal to
employees of private schools is provided under Section 9 of the Act.
The employee is entitled to maintain an appeal against order of
dismissal or removal or whose services are otherwise terminated or
who is reduced in rank by the order passed by the Management or
who is superseded by the management while making appointment
to any post by promotion.
{157}
wp416812.odt
25 Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, provides for
termination of service on account of abolition of posts, whereas,
Rule 26 provides for retrenchment on account of abolition of posts
and the said rules are as quoted below:
25A Termination of Service on account of abolition
of posts: (1) The services of permanent employee may
be terminated by the Management on account of
abolition of posts due to closure of the school after
giving him advance intimation of three months to the
effect that in the event of closure of the school, his
services shall automatically stand terminated. In the
case of closure of school due to de-recognition, such
advance intimation of three months shall be given by
the Management to the permanent employees after
receipt of a show cause notice from the Deputy
Director.
Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-rule,
the expression 'closure of the school' shall include,-
(i) voluntary closure by the Management of the
entire school if it is imparting instruction through one
medium or a part of the school comprising one or more
media of instruction if it is imparting instruction
through more than one medium; and
(ii) closure of the school due to de-recognition by the
Department.
(2) The names of the employees in aided schools,
whose services stand terminated in accordance with
sub-rule (1) on account of de-recognition and who are
not directly responsible for such de-recognition, shall
{158}
wp416812.odt
be taken on a waiting list by the Education Officer in
the case of Primary and Secondary Schools or by the
Deputy Director in the case of Higher Secondary
Schools and Junior College of Education, and same
shall be recommended by him to the Managements of
newly opened aided schools or of the existing aided
schools which are allowed to open additional divisions
or classes for consideration.
26 Retrenchment on account of abolition of posts:
(1) A permanent employee may be retrenched from
service by the Management after giving him 3 months'
notice, on any of the following grounds, namely:
(i) reduction of establishment owing to reduction in
the number of classes or divisions;
(ii) fall in the number of pupils resulting in
reduction of establishments;
(iii) change in the curriculum affecting the number
of certain category of employees;
(iv) closure of a course of studies;
(v) any other bona fide reason of similar nature.
(2) The retrenchment from services under sub-rule
(1) shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:
(i) The principle of seniority shall ordinarily be
observed;
(ii) Prior approval of the Education Officer in the
case of Primary and Secondary Schools or, of the
Deputy Director in the case of Higher Secondary
Schools and Junior Colleges of Education shall be
{159}
wp416812.odt
obtained by the Management in each case of
retrenchment including such cases in which the
principle of seniority as proposed to be departed from
and a senior member of the staff is proposed to be
retrenched when a junior member should have been
retrenched, stating the special reasons therefor;
(iii) The employees from aided schools, whose
services are proposed to be retrenched shall be
absorbed by the Education Officer in the case of
Primary and Secondary Schools or by the Deputy
Director in the case of Higher Secondary Schools and
Junior Colleges of Education. The order of absorption
of such employees shall be issued by registered post
acknowledgement due letter, and till they are absorbed,
the Management shall not be permitted to effect
retrenchment on account of any reasons mentioned in
sub-rule (1).
(3) In case any employee, refuses to accept the
alternative employment offered to him under clause (iii)
of sub-rule (2), he shall lose his claim for absorption,
and the Management of the school shall be allowed to
retrench, such employee from the services after
completion of 3 months' notice period.
(4) If the posts retrenched are received or additional
posts for the same subject are created, the
Management shall, by a registered post
acknowledgement due letter addressed to the employee
who is retrenched and absorbed in other school, give
him the first opportunity of rejoining service in the
school. For this purpose, the employee shall
communicate to the Management, his address and
availability for the job every year before April by a letter
sent by registered post acknowledgement due.
(5) The retrenched person who may have been
{160}
wp416812.odt
absorbed in other school shall have an option either to
get repatriated to his original school or to continue in
school in which he has been absorbed.
(6) If the employee opts to continue in the school in
which he has been absorbed, or if no written reply is
received from the employee within a fortnight from the
date of receipt of the letter addressed to him by the
Management regarding the offer for re-appointment or
repatriation to the school or on refusal by him to
receive the letter containing such offer, the
Management shall be free to fill the post or posts by
appointing some other qualified person or persons.
In the event of the employee opting to get
repatriated to the original school, he shall be restored
to his original position in pay, seniority, etc.
(8) In the event of the employee opting to continue in
the school in which he has been absorbed, and even
during the intervening period when he has not been
given an opportunity to rejoin his previous school, his
services shall not be terminated by the Management
under sub-rule (1) of rule 28 by treating him as
temporary. If the services of such an absorbed
employee are required to be terminated under rule 25A
or he is to be retrenched under this rule, the procedure
prescribed under rule 25A or, as the case may be in
this rule shall apply. However, his seniority for the
purpose of promotion in the school in which he is
absorbed shall be fixed in the respective category from
the date of his absorption.
(9) In case, the fall in the number of pupils, classes
or divisions affects the scale of the employee or his
status, the facility of absorption admissible as per
provisions of clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) shall not be
admissible to him and he shall have to work on the
{161}
wp416812.odt
lower scale or lower post or part-time post, as the case
may be. In the event of such an employee showing
unwillingness to work on such a post, the authorities
mentioned in clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) shall permit,
the Management to retrench him after giving him three
months' notice or, as the case may be, after completion
of the notice period, if already given.
26 The classification of penalties is provided under Rule
31, whereas, procedure for imposing minor penalties is provided
under Rule 32. Rule 33 provides for procedure for inflicting major
penalties. It is to be noted that major penalties include reduction
in rank and termination of services. The services of the employee
engaged in a private school cannot be terminated or he cannot be
reduced in rank without observing procedure prescribed under
Rule 33. As referred to above, Rule 25A provides for termination of
services on account of abolition of posts. Abolition of posts may be
on account of closure of the school due to de-recognition. The
names of the employees in aided schools, whose services stand
terminated in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 25A on account
of de-recognition and who are not directly responsible for de-
recognition shall have to be taken on waiting list by the Education
Officer in the case of Primary and Secondary Schools or by the
Deputy Director in the case of Higher Secondary Schools and
Junior College of Education and same shall be recommended to
the Managements of newly opened aided schools or of the existing
aided schools which are allowed to open additional divisions or
{162}
wp416812.odt
classes for consideration.
27 As is evident on perusal of Rule 26, a permanent
employee of a private school may be retrenched from service by the
Managing after giving him 3 months' notice in the event of, (i)
reduction of establishment owing to reduction in the number of
classes or divisions; (ii) fall in the number of pupils resulting in
reduction of establishments; (iii) change in the curriculum
affecting the number of certain category of employees; (iv) closure
of course of studies; and (v) any other bona fide reason of similar
nature. The retrenchment from service shall have to be in
accordance with principle of seniority and an order has to be
issued with prior approval of the Education Officer or Deputy
Director of Education, as the case may be. The Rules further
provide that employees from aided schools, whose services are
proposed to be retrenched, shall be absorbed by the Education
Officer or the Director of Education, as the case may be and such
employee is also entitled to continuity as well as for payment of
salary until his absorption.
28 In the instant case, a direction has been issued in
terms of clause 1.7 of the Government Resolution to terminate
services of the teachers straightway where it is noticed that
attendance of students in the schools during inspection was found
to be less than 50%. The direction issued by the State
{163}
wp416812.odt
Government in terms of clause 1.7 is contrary to the provisions of
MEPS Act as well as MEPS Rules, referred to above. The services
of a teacher can be terminated on account of abolition of posts and
such permanent teacher is entitled to claim absorption in terms of
sub-rule (2) of Rule 25A, so also in the event of retrenchment on
account of abolition of posts, the employee is entitled to be
absorbed in other schools operated by the private managements
and is also entitled for continuity of service and salary.
In the instant matter, however, giving go bye to the
provisions of Rules 25A and 26 of the MEPS Rules, as well as Rule
28, a direction has been issued for putting an end to the services
of a class of teachers. The directive contained in clause 1.7 of the
Government Resolution issued by the Government is, as such,
contrary to the provisions of MEPS Act and Rules, so also in
contravention of the Central Legislation as well as Rules framed
thereunder by the State of Maharashtra.
30 The Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, is enacted
with a view to discharge obligation of the Government to secure the
development and expansion of primary education and in
furtherance of the policy of universal, free and compulsory primary
education. Sections 32 to 35 of the Bombay Primary Education
Act provides for duties of the parents to cause their children to
attend the school; meaning of reasonable excuse; procedure for
{164}
wp416812.odt
issuance of attendance order and penalty for failure to cause child
to attend approved school. The relevant provisions are as quoted
below:
32 Duty to be charged in area of compulsion:- In
every area of compulsion, the parent of every child to
whom a scheme applies shall in the absence of a
reasonable excuse as hereinafter provided and if such
parent and child ordinarily reside in such area cause
such child to attend an approved school in such area.
33 Meaning of reasonable excuse- A Parent shall be
deemed to have a reasonable excuse for failure to
cause a child to attend an approved school in any of
the following cases:-
(a) where the child is prevented from attending
school by sickness, informity or other unavoidable
cause;
(b) where the child is receiving, otherwise than in
an approved school, instruction which in the opinion of
the school board [ or Zilla Parishad, as the case may
be,] a certificate of having already completed his
primary education up to the standard included in the
scheme;
(c) where there is no approved school within the
distance fixed by the Zilla Parishad or school board
under section 13 or 18, as the case may be;
(d) where after due application, entrance to an
approved school has been refused to the child and
there is not other approved school to which he can be
admitted within the distance, fixed under section 13 or
18, as the case may be, until such time as the parent
{165}
wp416812.odt
is notified by the Administrative Officer [or [Parishad
Education Officer]] that the child can be admitted;
(e) where there is no approved school in the locality
in which instruction is given in the language spoken by
the child.
(f) where there is no approved school in the locality
to which the parent can send the child without
exposing him to religious instruction to which the
parent object.
34 Issue of attendance order:-(1) Where the [Zilla
Parishad or school board] is satisfied that the parent of
any child who is bound under the provisions of section
32 to cause such child to attend an approved school
has failed to do so, the [Zilla Parishad or, as the case
may be the school board] after giving the parent an
opportunity of being heard and after such inquiry as it
considers necessary may make an order directing the
parent to cause such child to attend an approved
school on and from the date which shall be specified in
the order.
(2) This power may be delegated by the Zilla
Parishad to any member of the Education Committee
appointed by it or the Parishad Education Officer or
any officer of the Zilla Parishad and by the school to
any of its members or to the Administrative Officer or
other officer of the school board.
(3) Any parent aggrieved by an order made under
sub-section (1) may within thirty days from the date of
such order, appeal to the Deputy Director of Education
of the Division who may confirm or rescind the order
as he deems fit.
35 Penalty for failure to cause child to attend
{166}
wp416812.odt
approved school - (1) If an order with reference to a
child has been made under sub-section (1) of section
34 against any parent and if such parent fails to
comply with the provisions of section 32 with respect
to such child on or after the date specified in such
order, unless such order is rescinded in an appeal
made under sub-section (3) of the said section 34,
such parent shall, on conviction, be punished with fine
not exceeding two rupees; and in case such failure
continues after such conviction, he shall also be
punished with fine of eight annas for every day on
which the failure continues or is repeated.
No court shall take cognizance of an offence
under sub-section (1) except on a complaint presented
in person or sent by registered post by the Parishad
Education Officer or any officer authorized by him in
this behalf or, as the case may be by the
Administrative Officer, or any other officer authorized
by him in this behalf.
31 On consideration of the provisions referred to above, it
does appear that it is the duty of the parents of every child, in the
absence of reasonable excuse, to ensure attendance of the child in
the school. The term 'reasonable excuse' has been defined in
Section 33 of the Act. On failure of a parent to perform the
obligation prescribed under Section 32 of the Bombay Primary
Education Act, 1947, a penalty has been prescribed under Section
35. Thus, it does appear that it is the responsibility of the parents
of the child to ensure attendance of their children in the school.
The State Government, however, in issuing the Resolution
impugned in this petition, proposes to shift the obligation of
{167}
wp416812.odt
ensuring attendance of the children in the school, on the teachers
and also prescribe penalty on their failure, which is directed to be
enforced without extending opportunity of hearing to such teachers
and without following procedure prescribed in the relevant Act and
the Rules.
32 Section 48 of the Bombay Primary Education Act,
1947, provides that the State Government may appoint such
officers including inspecting officers as it may deem necessary for
the purposes of superintendence and inspection and generally for
the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. Sub-
section (2) provides that the officers appointed under sub-section
(1) shall be the servants of the State Government, and their powers
and duties shall be such as may be prescribed.
33 The Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 and more
particularly, Rules 167 to 170 provide for duties of Deputy
Educational Inspector, Assistant Deputy Educational Inspector,
Assistant Deputy Educational Inspectors for Physical Education;
and duties of Craft Supervisors concerning conduct of inspection
of schools and other supervisory duties.
34 In the instant matter, prior to issuing impugned
Government Resolution, a novel method has been evolved by the
State Government of deploying employees of Revenue Department
{168}
wp416812.odt
for verifying attendance of the students in the schools under the
special drive undertaken by the State. As has been referred to
above, the State Government does have powers to appoint officers
for the purposes of superintendence and inspection, however, there
has to be an authorization in respect of powers and duties in
favour of such officers, as may be prescribed. In the instant
matter, it does not appear that the special drive conducted by the
Revenue officials has been under the orders, as contemplated by
Section 48 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. It would
be open for the State Government to cause inspection of the
schools through the officers appointed in that behalf excluding
officers of the Education Department, however, in terms of sub-
section (2) of Section 48, the State shall prescribe powers and
duties of such officers. The provisions of Section 48 contemplate
an order prescribing powers and duties of the officers appointed for
conducting inspection of the schools. In the instant matter, the
procedure, as prescribed under Section 48, does not appear to
have been followed.
35 In the affidavit-in-reply presented by Shri Nana U.
Raurale, Joint Secretary, School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya, it is averred in paragraph no.9, as
follows:
"9 ....... The State Government suspected that it is
quite possible that the number of students in the given
{169}
wp416812.odt
school is represented to be more perhaps with the
active connivance of the officers in Education
Department. Therefore, the responsibility of carrying
out survey was cast upon the Officers of the Revenue
Department. ......."
36 It is quite surprising that the State Government
suspects impartiality and loyalty of its own officers serving in the
Education Department. Sweeping allegations have been made
against the officers working in the Education Department. It is
also not clarified as to what steps are taken by the State
Government against erring officers whose integrity is suspected.
The functions of the officers of Revenue Department are quite
distinct and it cannot be inferred that they are conversant with the
functioning of the Education Department. It is also intriguing to
note that while doubting integrity of the officers of the Education
Department, whether the State Government indirectly proposes to
certify integrity and character of all the officers of the Revenue
Department. The stand taken by the State Government, in its
affidavit-in-reply, is not at all acceptable and we put on record our
displeasure as regards the sweeping allegations made in the
affidavit-in-reply concerning officers functioning in the Education
Department.
37 There are instructions issued by the Government in
the form of Secondary School Code and the provisions are in the
{170}
wp416812.odt
nature of executive instructions. Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6 relate to
withdrawal of recognition, whereas, conditions of service and the
matters concerning termination of employees, procedure of
enquiry, is as provided in Part II and III. Suffice it to note that the
directive contained in clause 1.7 of the Government Resolution is
contrary to the provisions of Secondary School Code.
38 Clause 1.2 of the Government Resolution prescribes
that 15th July of relevant year shall be the prescribed date for
determining strength of the teachers in primary and secondary
schools. The directive contained in aforesaid clause is contrary to
the provisions of the Act and Rules and this position has not been
controverted on behalf of the State Government. The learned
Government Pleader, appearing for the State, has brought to our
notice a communication issued by the State Government on 24 th
August, 2012, wherein it has been recorded that the prescribed
date for the purposes of determining strength of the teachers in
accordance with provisions of the RTE Act of 2009, shall be 30th
September of the relevant year. In view of the statement made by
the learned Government Pleader, on the basis of communication
dated 24.08.2012, clause 1.2 of the Government Resolution does
not hold good.
39 Reliance is placed by the petitioners on the judgment
in the matter of State of Karnataka & another Vs. B. Suvarna
{171}
wp416812.odt
Malini and another, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 728, for the
proposition that the Rules framed by the State Government are of
legislative character and would have the force as if the State
Legislature has framed the Laws. In the instant matter also, the
Rules framed by the State Government, namely MEPS Rules as
well as Rules framed under the RTE Act of 2009 having been
tabled before each House of the State Legislature, shall have the
force of law. The Rules are framed in exercise of the powers
conferred under the Act and since the requirement for framing of
the Rules having been duly fulfilled, the Rules are legislative in
character.
40 In the matter of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage
Board Vs. Ranjodh Singh and others, reported in AIR 2007 SC
1082, in paragraph no.10, it is observed thus:
"10 A statutory board is an autonomous body.
Nothing has been brought to our notice to show
that under the statute any direction issued by
the State shall be binding on it. The State may
have some control with regard to recruitment of
employees of local authorities, but such control
must be exercised by the State strictly in terms
of the provisions of the Act. The statutory
bodies are bound to apply the rules of
recruitment laid down under statutory rules.
They being 'States' within the meaning of Article
12 of the Constitution of India, are bound to
implement the constitutional scheme of
equality. Neither the statutory bodies can
{172}
wp416812.odt
refuse to fulfil such constitutional duty, nor the
State can issue any direction contrary to or
inconsistent with the constitutional principles
adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The purported directions
of the State were otherwise bad in law in so far
as thereby the statutory rules were sought to be
superseded. A circular letter furthermore is not
a statutory instrument. It was not even issued
by the State in exercise of the power under
Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Even a
scheme issued under Article 162 of the
Constitution of India, would not prevail over
statutory rules."
41 The Supreme Court has held that the directives of the
State were bad in law insofar as thereby the statutory rules were
sought to be superseded. It has further been held that even a
scheme framed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India,
would not prevail over statutory rules.
42 As has been observed above, in the instant matter, the
directives issued under the impugned Government Resolution in
clauses 1.2 to 1.7, are contrary to the express provisions of the Act
and the Rules framed thereunder. An order, issued against an
employee, directing him to retire compulsorily before attaining age
of superannuation, has been set aside by the High Court in the
matter of Sukanya Apte & another Vs. State of Maharashtra &
others, reported in 2007(5) Bom.C.R. 472 and in the matter of
Namdeo Bikkad & another Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition
{173}
wp416812.odt
No.1772 of 1997, decided on 14.07.2006), holding that since the
provisions of MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder do not
provide for compulsory retirement of an employee, such an order is
unsustainable in law. In the instant matter, directives have been
issued by the Government under the Government Resolution,
which are clearly in contravention of the Act and the Rules.
43 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of
Nishad Sadashiv Pawar & others Vs. Dnyanasadhana College &
others, reported in 2005 (4) All M.R. 101, for the proposition that
the Rules are subordinate legislation, whereas, administrative
instructions are not. The Government Resolutions issued by the
State from time to time, in exercise of administrative powers under
Article 162 of the Constitution would be inapplicable to the
admissions in schools and Junior Colleges, which are contrary to
the provisions of the Act and Rules.
44 Reiterating the view expressed in the matter of A.
Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others,
reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112, the Supreme Court, in the matter of
Mahadeo Bhau Khilare (Mane) & others Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others, reported in 2007 (6) All M.R. 476, has
observed that any scheme, by way of a executive instruction in
terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India, if violative of such
statutory rules, would not be legally sustainable.
{174}
wp416812.odt
45 The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the
State, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the matter of Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. Vs. State of
Uttaranchal & others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 418, has urged
that the State must have liberty and freedom in framing policies.
Although the discretion is not absolute, unqualified, unfettered or
uncanalised and judiciary has control over all executive actions, it
is also well established that Courts are ill-equipped to deal with
these matters. It is contended that in the facts and circumstances
of these matters, this Court shall refrain from interfering in the
decision taken by the State Government.
46 In this context, reference can be made to following
observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs no.67, 68, 69
and 79 of the judgment, in the matter of Dhampur Sugar
(Kashipur) Ltd. (supra).
"67 Reversing the judgment, this Court
observed that the High Court has thoroughly
misunderstood the nature of the jurisdiction
that was exercised by it.
"9 ... So long as there is no violation of
any fundamental rights and if the
principles of natural justice are not
offended, it was not for the High Court to
lay down the policy that should be
{175}
wp416812.odt
adopted by the educational authorities in
the matter of granting permission for
starting schools. The question of policy is
essentially for the State and such policy
will depend upon an overall assessment
and summary of the requirements of
residents of a particular locality and other
categories of persons for whom it is
essential to provide facilities for
education. If the overall assessment is
arrived at after a proper classification on a
reasonable basis, it is not for the courts to
interfere with the policy leading up to such
assessment." (emphasis supplied)
68 In R.K. Garg Vs. Union of India,
constitutional validity of the Special Bearer
Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act,1981
was challenged being arbitrary and having no
reasonable nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. Holding the Act intra vires and
constitutional and describing it as a policy
legislation, the majority stated: (SCC p.691,
para 8)
"8 .... The Court must always remember
that 'legislation is directive to practical
problems, that the economic mechanism
is highly sensitive and complex, that
many problems are singular and
contingent, that laws are not abstract
propositions and do not relate to abstract
units and are not to be measured by
abstract symmetry', 'that exact wisdom
and nice adaption of remedy are not
always possible' and that 'judgment is
largely a prophecy based on meagre and
uninterrupted experience'. Every
{176}
wp416812.odt
legislation particularly in economic
matters is essentially empiric and it is
based on experimentation or what one
may call trial and error method and
therefore it cannot provide for all possible
situations or anticipate all possible
abuses. There may be crudities and
inequities in complicated experimental
economic legislation but on that account
alone it cannot be struck down as invalid."
(emphasis supplied)
69 In Liberty Oil Mills Vs. Union of India,
dealing with the import and export policy
following by the Government, this Court
observed: (SCC p. 478, para 6)
"6.... The import policy of any country,
particularly in a developing country, has
necessarily to be tuned to its general
economic policy founded upon its
constitutional goals, the requirements of
its internal and international trade, its
agricultural and industrial development
plans, its monetary and financial
strategies and last but not the least the
international political and diplomatic
overtones depending on 'friendship,
neutrality or hostility with other
countries'. There must also be a
considerable number of other factors
which go into the making of an import
policy. Expertise in public and political,
national and international economy is
necessary before one may engage in the
making or in the criticism of an import
policy. Obviously courts do not possess
the expertise and are consequently
{177}
wp416812.odt
incompetent to pass judgment on the
appropriateness or the adequacy of a
particular import policy."
(emphasis supplied)
79 In our opinion, Chagla, C.J. Was
right in making the following observations in
State of Bombay Vs. Laxmidas Ranchhoddas:
(AIR p. 475, para 12).
"12 ...We are not oblivious of the fact that
in order that the modern State should
function the Government must be armed
with very large powers. But the High
Court does not interfere with the exercise
of those powers. The High Court only
interferes when it finds that those powers
are not exercised in accordance with the
mandate of the legislature. Therefore, far
from interfering with the good governance
of the State, the Court helps the good
governance by constantly reminding
Government and its officers that they
should act within the four corners of the
statute and not contravene any of the
conditions laid down as a limitation upon
their undoubtedly wide powers.
Therefore, even from a practical point of
view, even from the point of view of the
good governance of the State, we think
that the High Court should not be
reluctant to issue its prerogative writ
whenever it finds that the sovereign
legislature has not been obeyed and
powers have been assumed which the
legislature never conferred upon the
executive." (emphasis supplied)
{178}
wp416812.odt
47 As has been observed in the matter of State of
Bombay Vs. Laxmidas Ranchhoddas, reported in AIR 1952 Bom
468, the Court helps the good governance by constantly reminding
Government and its officers that they should act within the four
corners of the statute and not contravene any of the conditions laid
down as a limitation upon their undoubtedly wide powers.
48 In the instant matter, as has been concluded by
process of reasoning recorded above, that the directives issued by
the State Government under the Government Resolution dated
02.05.2012 are found to be contradictory with the provisions of law
and the Rules framed thereunder, those are required to be quashed
and set aside. At the same time, it is specifically clarified that
powers of the State Government to initiate criminal prosecution
against the management of the private schools, Head Master,
teachers and other employees, is not taken away and in the event,
it is found that the private managements or its employees have
indulged in the activities which amounts to an offence under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other enactment, it
would be open for the State Government to initiate prosecution
against such managements and the employees concerned.
However, the Managements and the employees cannot be
prosecuted and charged with commission of offence merely
because during special drive, attendance of the students in the
school was found to be less than 50%. The management as well
{179}
wp416812.odt
as employees of the schools, if are suspected to be guilty of
fabricating the record or indulging in any unlawful activities and
are responsible for creating false record to demonstrate inflated
strength of students in school with a view to extract inadmissible
financial gain, they can be prosecuted by taking recourse to the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
49 We are of the view that the directives issued by the
State Government contained in Government Resolution dated
02.05.2012, issued by the State Government in clauses 1.2, 1.3,
1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 needs to be quashed and set aside and are
accordingly quashed and set aside.
50 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no
order as to costs. Pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive
and stand disposed of.
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/
