Bombay High Court
The School Managing Committee, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 June, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp913213.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9132 OF 2013
01 The School Managing Committee
Shri Gurudev Datta Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Manikdaundi, Tq.Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar, through the
Secretary Smt.Sanjivani Tatyaba
Dhavad.
02 The School Managing Committee
Shri Gurudev Datta Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Manikdaundi, Tq.Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar, through its
Waghmare.
Member Smt.Rukhmini Vasant
Petitioners
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
to Secondary School Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
02 Dy. Director of Education,
Pune Division, Pune.
03 Dy. Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
04 Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
05 Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.
06 Maharashtra Gramin Vikas
Mandal, A/p. Pimprilauki
Azampur, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar, through
its President and/or Secretary.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:19:27 :::
{2}
wp913213.odt
07 Shri Sant Dnyaneshwar Gramin
Vikas Pratisthan, At Post -
Manikdaundi, Tq. Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar, through
its President and/or Secretary.
08 Shri Gurudev Datta Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, At Post : Manikdaundi,
Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar,
through its Headmaster. Respondents
Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for petitioners.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP with Mr.V.M.Kagane, AGP for
Respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior Counsel i/by Mr.A.V.Hon, advocate for
Respondent No.6.
Mr.A.G.Ambetkar, advocate for Respondent No.7.
Mr.P.R.Nagare, advocate for Respondent No.8.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA, JJ.
Reserved on : 20th June, 2016
Pronounced on: 22nd June, 2016.
JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 Petitioners are objecting to the order passed by the
State Government on 26.06.2013, permitting transfer of
Respondent No.8 - Shri Gurudev Datta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, at
village Manikdaundi, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar, managed
{3}
wp913213.odt
by Respondent No.6 - Maharashtra Gramin Vikas Mandal,
Pimprilauki Azampur, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, from
village Manikdaundi, Tq. Pathardi, to village Gandheli, Garkheda
area, Aurangabad.
3 Petitioner no.1 is the school managing Committee of
Respondent No.9 school, whereas, ward of petitioner no.2 is taking
education in Respondent No.8 - school. Respondent No.6 -
institution was granted permission to operate a school from the
academic year 2000-2001. However, at the relevant time, since
students' strength was quite deficient and it was impossible for
Respondent No.6 to manage and operate the school. Respondent
No.6 submitted a proposal for shifting of the school, which was
approved and the school started functioning during the academic
year 2008-2009 at village Manikdaundi, Tq. Pathardi.
4 According to the petitioners, the school was running
smoothly, however, Respondent No.6, for the reasons known to the
Management, tendered a proposal for shifting of the school from
village Manikdaundi, Tq. Pathardi, to village Chinchale, Tq. Rahuri.
Simultaneously, there was another proposal tendered by
Respondent No.6 seeking permission to shift the school to village
Gandheli, Garkheda area, Aurangabad. The State Government,
considering the proposal, accorded permission to shift the school
to village Gandheli, Garkheda area, Aurangabad, on the condition
that all the teaching and non teaching staff working in the school
shall be accommodated in the school at the transferred place and
consent of Parents/Teachers Committee shall be obtained for
shifting the school to village Gandheli, Garkheda area, Aurangabad
{4}
wp913213.odt
and the Management shall ensure that the transfer will not affect
academic interest of the students.
5 Petitioners contend that consent of the teaching and
non teaching staff of Respondent No.8 - school has never been
obtained by Respondent No.6. In the proposal names of different
persons were shown as employees and the State authorities were
misled. It was tried to be demonstrated that the school is closed
down from the academic year 2011-2012 which fact was totally
incorrect. Petitioners also contend that the Gram Panchayat
Resolution annexed to the proposal is forged. The Gram Panchayat
did not accord approval to transfer of school from village
Manikdaundi. The approval of the parents, whose wards are
studying in the school, was not taken and interest of the students
is given go bye.
6 It is pointed out that teaching and non teaching staff of
the school has presented a writ petition in this Court bearing
No.7948 of 2013, wherein it is specifically mentioned that
Respondent No.6 has made unwarranted and unwanted demands
from the staff members. There was an attempt on the part of
Respondent No.6 to transfer management of the school in favour of
Respondent No.7. There was also an agreement reduced into
writing between Respondent No.6 Respondent No.7 in respect of
transfer of the school from one institution to another, which is
impermissible. The members of the teaching and non teaching
staff have prayed for action against the management and also
prayed to protect services of the employees and their financial
interest. It is the contention of petitioners that the place, where
{5}
wp913213.odt
the school is transferred, is more than 100 Kms away from the
place where the school was operated. There was absolutely no
reason for transfer of the school. The petitioners, as such, prayed
for quashing the transfer order issued by the State Government,
which, according to the petitioners, is contrary to the policy
prescribed by the State Government in respect of transfer of
schools.
7 An affidavit-in-reply has been presented on behalf of
Respondent No.6 wherein it is stated that petitioners do not have
locus standi to challenge the orders issued by the State
Government permitting transfer of the school. It is contended that
instant petition shall not be entertained during pendency of
petition presented by the employees, being Writ Petition No.7948 of
2013. According to Respondent No.6, after observing the
procedure, permission was granted to start secondary school at
village Kothe Malkapur, Tq. Sangamner on 18.09.2003. Since
requisite number of students were not available, the State
Government, by an order dated 19.12.2007, accorded permission to
shift the school to village Manikdaundi, Tq. Pathardi. It is
contended that since there is a Zilla Parishad school conducting
classes from 1st to 7th Standards and there also exist a school
receiving grant-in-aid conducting classes from 5th to 10th
standards, it was difficult for Respondent No.6 to run the school as
requisite number of students were not admitted in the school.
Considering this aspect, Respondent No.6 tendered an application
to the State Government seeking permission to transfer the school
from village Manikdaundi to village Gandheli, Garkheda area,
Aurangabad; and after observing the procedure, the State
{6}
wp913213.odt
Government has accorded sanction.
8 It is the contention of Respondent No.6 that petitioner
no.1 - school managing committee is not a legal entity and said
Committee does not have any permission to run the school at
village Manikdaundi. It is contended that appointment of staff to
teach the students, is at the instance of petitioners in collusion
with Respondent No.7 and a false record is created in that regard.
The officers of the Education Department were misled while they
conducted inspection of the school. Respondent No.6 contends
that petitioner no.1 and Respondent No.7 have created fraudulent
record in respect of annual inspection of the school for the
academic year 2011-2012. It is further contended that recognition
granted by Respondent No.3 on 30.03.2013 under the provisions of
Section 18 of the Right to Education Act, is also illegal and without
verifying the documents. It is contended that since there were less
number of students admitted to the school at Manikdaundi, a
request was made for transfer of the school, which was accorded by
the State Government. Respondent No.6 further contends that the
school was not in operation at village Manikdaundi and same is
already shifted to village Gandheli, Garkheda area, Aurangabad,
after complying with necessary formalities. Respondent No.6, as
such, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
9 The petitioners have placed on record annual
inspection reports of the school at village Manikdaundi for the
academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-12 and
2012-2013. The annual inspection reports are duly signed by
Deputy Education Officer of the Zilla Parishad. The list of
{7}
wp913213.odt
members of teaching and non teaching staff is incorporated in the
inspection reports. It is reported by the Deputy Education Officer
that there are five trained teachers functioning in the school and
the school is functional.
10 In view of the inspection reports conducted by the
officers of Education department of the Zilla Parishad, contention
raised by Respondents that there were no students in the school
and the school was not operational for the academic year 2011-
2012, does not appear to be correct. In fact, the school is
operational and there are students admitted in the school, as
reflected from the reports of the Education Department from 2008-
2009 onwards till the date of presentation of the writ petition.
11 Apart from this, the list of employees verified by the
Education Department also does support the contention raised by
petitioners in the petition. The employees, whose names appear in
the inspection reports, have presented writ petition bearing
No.7948 of 2013 in this Court, seeking relief of protection of their
services and for release of salary grants. The school has also been
inspected after enforcement of provisions of Right to Education Act
and the Education Officer has accorded permission to the school
to run classes from 8th standard from 2013-2016 by an order dated
30.03.2013. The copy of the report of Education Officer is annexed
at Exhibit-G to the petition.
12 In view of the facts, as recorded above, the contention
of Respondent No.6 that Respondent No.8 school was not
functional from 2011-2012 onwards does not appear to be correct
{8}
wp913213.odt
and it does appear that Respondent No.6 misled the State
authorities by informing that the school was closed down since
June 2011. It also does transpire that Respondent No.6 tendered
two proposals in respect of transfer of school to the State
Government. One proposal relates to transfer of school to village
Chinchale, whereas, another proposal was in respect of transfer of
school to village Gandheli, Garkheda area, Aurangabad. In both
the proposals, Respondent No.6 has informed the State authorities
that the school is closed down at village Manikdaundi from 2011
onwards. It is also noted in the proposal for transfer of the school
that since the employees functioning in the school are temporary,
permission for transfer need not be secured. It does appear that
Respondent No.6 has neither secured permission of the employees
nor has looked into welfare of the students and has misled the
State authorities by informing that the school is closed down since
2011 onwards. Respondent No.6 has annexed list of employees,
which is totally different than the list of employees functioning in
the school and those who have approached this Court by
presenting Writ Petition No.7948 of 2013. The list of the employees
functioning in the school has been recorded in the annual
inspection report conducted by the Education Officer. However,
Respondent No.6 has submitted the State Government particulars
in respect of employees, which are patently misleading. It has been
brought to the notice by the petitioners, by presenting an affidavit,
that one of the employee whose name appears in the list tendered
by Respondent No.6 by name Aghav Meenanath is not a teacher
but is doing a private job. One Shri Palve Sanjay is working as
Court clerk in Ahmednagar court premises. One Pote Seema is a
housewife. Whereas, another employee Sow. Anjali Kulkarni is
{9}
wp913213.odt
working in the Primary Health Centre at Manikdaundi. Her date of
appointment is 28.05.2009 and copy of the information supplied
by Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, regarding employment
of Anjali Kulkarni is annexed to the rejoinder.
13 It does appear that list of the employees shown by
Respondent No.6 as teachers functioning in the school, while
tendering proposal for transfer of the school, is fraudulent.
Respondent No.6 has misled the State by furnishing false list of
employees and also by furnishing a false information to the effect
that the school is already closed down. Respondent No.6 has
relied upon fabricated record and is instrumental in securing order
of transfer. Apart from this, Respondent No.7 - Institution
represented by Madhukar Dhavad has presented an affidavit-in-
reply wherein concerned Respondent has stated that there was an
agreement in respect of transfer of Respondent No.8 school in
favour of Respondent No.7 - Institution. Copy of the agreement
arrived at between Respondents No.6 & 7 is placed on record at
Exhibit-R-1 to the affidavit-in-reply presented by Respondent No.7.
It also does appear that Respondent No.7 paid Rs.10,35,000/- to
Respondent No.6. Respondent No.7 has furnished a proof of
payment of Rs.50,000/-, which amount is deposited in the account
of Respondent No.6 on 11.07.2009. and further sum of Rs.50,000/-
has been transferred online to the account of Respondent No.6. It
is also alleged by Respondent No.7 that Respondent No.6 was
asking for payment of Rs.40,00,000/-. It does appear that
Respondent No.6 is dealing with Respondent No.8 school as if it is
a commodity and has entered into an agreement with Respondent
No.7 for transfer of the school. Such a course is not permissible
{10}
wp913213.odt
under education policy adopted by the State.
14 The State Government has declared a policy
prescribing guidelines for transfer of the schools on 9 th June, 2010.
Under the policy, schools are required to tender their proposals for
transfer to Divisional Deputy Director of Education. The Divisional
Deputy Directors of Education are expected to tender, in
consultation with the Education Officer, the fact finding report to
the State Government. It is also mandated under the policy that
the place, from where the school is to be transferred by virtue of
transfer of a school, students from the said place shall not be put
to inconvenience and the place where the school is proposed to be
transferred, shall not generate unnecessary competition. It is also
required to be ensured that interest of the students is protected
and employees also shall have to be accommodated.
15 In the instant matter, guidelines framed by the State
Government under the policy dated 17th February 2009, have been
given go bye. The interest of the students has not at all been
considered nor consent of the employees has been adopted. The
procedure prescribed under the policy also does not appear to be
adhered to while permitting transfer by the State Government. The
State Government has issued further instructions in respect of
transfer of school under the policy formulated on 31.07.2013. It is
mandated under the revised policy that the high school shall not
be transferred beyond the area of 10 Kms. In the instant matter,
although case of the petitioners is governed under the old policy,
there is no reason as to why transfer of the school is permitted
almost at a place which is 100 Kms away.
{11}
wp913213.odt
16 For the reasons set out above, we are of the view that
action of the State Government, in according approval to the
transfer of Respondent No.8-school, operated by Respondent No.6-
Management, is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside
and same is accordingly quashed and set aside.
17 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.
P.R.BORA R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp913213
