Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Rajya Krida Wa ... vs Presiding Officer School ... on 19 December, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp2605.16.J.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2605 OF 2016
Maharashtra Rajya Krida Wa Sharirik
Shikshan Shikshak Mahasangh, Pune
Branch: Akola through its Secretary,
Akola Unit Shri Rajendra Jalamkar,
Aged about 50 years, Occ: Teacher,
R/o Jathar Peth, Akola. ....... PETITIONER
ig ...V E R S U S...
1] Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Amravati Division, Bachat Bhavan
Camp: Amravati, Amravati.
2] Akola Education Society Shikshan
Sankul, New English High School
Premises, Near Ramdaspeth Police
Station - Akola - 444 001.
3] New English High School,
Near Ramdaspeth Police Station,
Akola.
4] Education Officer (Sec.),
Zilla Parishad, Zilla Shikshan Wa
Prashikshan Sanstha (DIET) Premises,
Behind Santoshi Mata Mandir, Akola.
5] Shri Surendra s/o Manohar Deshmukh,
Bhattad Nagar, Devikar's House,
Murtizapur, Dist. Akola.
6] Murtizapur High School, Murtizapur
through its acting Head Master
Murtizapur, Dist. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:53:17 :::
wp2605.16.J.odt 2/5
7] Shri Sanjay s/o Shri Parshuram Phadnaik,
Aged about 57 years, Occ: Teacher,
R/o Near State Bank of India, Kokanwadi,
Murtizapur, Dist. Akola. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. Shelat, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri A.R. Chutake, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 4.
Shri V.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 5
and 6.
Shri R.S. Phadnaik, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE: 19
ig th DECEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] The order impugned passed on 31.03.2016 below
Exh.32 in Appeal No.34 of 2015 rejects the application for
intervention filed by the petitioner-society. According to
Shri Shelat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
appeal in question involves the question of eligibility of a class of
Physical Education Teachers for promotion to the post of Head
Master/Head Mistress of the School. He submits that the interest
of a class of persons employed or Physical Education Teachers all
over the State of Maharashtra is involved, and therefore, the
wp2605.16.J.odt 3/5
petitioner-society which is an association of Physical Education
Teachers be permitted to intervene in the matter and to address
the Court on this issue, by placing on record several policy
decisions in that regard, if any, passed by the State Government or
Director of Education as the case may be.
3] Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 namely the Management and the
person promoted to the post of Head Master submits that there is
no public interest is involved in the matter, so as to permit the
petitioner to intervene in the matter. He submits that it is purely
an individual interest which is involved and the petitioner-society
has no locus to intervene or address the Tribunal on the issue.
4] The School Tribunal can permit the petitioner to
intervene in the matter only if it finds that a question of eligibility
of a class of Physical Education Teachers for promotion to the post
of Head Master is involved in the matter. If such question does not
arise in the present case according to the Tribunal, then the
Tribunal need not hear the petitioner on the aspect. In view of
this, the impugned order rejecting the application for intervention
cannot be sustained and the same is quashed and set aside and
wp2605.16.J.odt 4/5
the following order is passed:
i] The application for intervention filed by the
petitioner at Exh.32 before the School Tribunal
in Appeal No.34 of 2015 is allowed.
ii] The School Tribunal after hearing the parties
igfinds that the question to be decided by it is
likely to affect the eligibility of a class of
Physical Education Teachers for promotion to
the post of Head Master/Head Mistress, then it
shall permit the petitioner to address the
Tribunal and refer to the policy decisions of the
State Government or the rules and the relevant
provisions of the Act for that purpose.
The other side shall have an opportunity to
address on the submission of the intervenors
before the School Tribunal.
iii] If the School Tribunal finds that it is purely an
individual dispute which is involved before it,
which is not likely to affect a class of Physical
wp2605.16.J.odt 5/5
Education Teachers, then it need not consider
the arguments of the petitioner.
5] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
NSN
