Bombay High Court
Sunil Chandrashekhar Akant vs Deputy Director Of Education ... on 7 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP-1317-15 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1317 OF 2015
Sunil Chandrashekhar Akant
Aged about 52 years, Occupation Service
R/o Anihanagar, Bangaon, Amgaon
Tah. Amgaon, Dist. Gondia. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. Dy. Director of Education
Nagpur Region Nagpur.
2. Ramesh Pyarelal Ujawane,
R/o Vidyanagri, Tq. & Post
Aamgaon, Dist. Gondia 441902
3. Uttam Bhaudak Nandeshwar,
R/o Gondia Road, Shubham Nagar,
Bangaon, Post Aamgaon,
Dist. Gondia 441902.
4. Sujata Chandrakant Siras,
Ranchowk, In front of Gramin Bank,
Amgaon, Tq. Amgaon, Dist. Gondia. ... Respondents.
Shri R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Shri P. N. Shende, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Shri S. Alaspurkar, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : October 07, 2016
Oral Judgment : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.).
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard
WP-1317-15 2/5
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy
Director of Education, Nagpur Region Nagpur dated 02/03/2015, restraining
the petitioner from managing the affairs of the education society of which he
was the Secretary and directing that till the decision is rendered in the
Change Report, only the four other members that are mentioned in the order
should manage the affairs of the education society.
The petitioner is in the services of the respondent No.2 Zilla
Parishad as a Livestock Supervisor. While holding the said post, the
petitioner was elected as a Secretary in the Management of the education
society viz. Shri Samarth Ramdas Shikshan Sanstha Amgaon. Since
according to the Zilla Parishad, where the petitioner is working as the
Livestock Supervisor, the petitioner could not have continued to work as a
Secretary in the Management that runs the education society in view of Rule
14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Conduct) Rules 1967,
an order was passed by the Zilla Parishad restraining the petitioner from
working as a Secretary in the Management of the said Society. The
petitioner has challenged the said order before the Commissioner, in appeal.
The appeal of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner has filed a writ
petition that is pending before the learned Single Judge. According to the
petitioner, though the Dy. Director of Education did not have the jurisdiction
WP-1317-15 3/5
to direct as to which of the persons should manage the affairs of the
education society, by the impugned order dated 02/03/2015, the Dy.
Director has restrained the petitioner from working as a Secretary in the
management of the education society and has permitted only four other
members that are mentioned in the order to manage the affairs of the
society.
Shri R. S. Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error
inasmuch as the Dy. Director of Education, Nagpur did not have jurisdiction
to decide as to who should manager the affairs of the society. It is submitted
that the issue could be decided by the Charity Commissioner under the
provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It is stated that a similar issue
came up for consideration before this Court in case of Murlidhar s/o Janrao
Kale and ors vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported in 2011(1)
Mh.L.J. 849 in which this Court has held that the Educational Authorities
would not be entitled to decide as to who should administer the educational
institutions. It is submitted that it is held by this Court in the aforesaid
judgment that the jurisdiction to decide the validity of the elections, changes
in the board of trustees or trustees vests with only the Assistant Charity
Commissioner and it would not be proper for the Educational Authorities to
decide as to who should administer the trust or the educational institute.
Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader
WP-1317-15 4/5
appearing on behalf of the Dy. Director of Education submitted that the Dy.
Director of Education has passed the order on the basis of the order passed
by the Zilla Parishad restraining the petitioner from working as the Secretary
of the Educational Society. It is stated that since certain Change Report
inquiry is pending, the Dy. Director of Education had passed the impugned
order restraining the petitioner from managing the affairs of the Society. It is
however fairly admitted that in the judgment of Murlidhar vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra) this Court has warned the Educational Authority not to
decide as to who administer the Educational Society and the institutions.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the
issue involved in this case stands answered by the judgment in case of
Murlidhar vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). This Court held in the
aforesaid judgment while considering a similar issue that it would not be
proper for the Educational Authority to decide as to who should administer
the Educational institutions. This Court held that the Dy. Director of
Education has no authority/power of jurisdiction to decide which board of
trustee or which trustees shall run the management of the trust and the
school. It is further observed in the said judgment that the jurisdiction to so
decide lies with the Assistant Charity Commissioner. It is clear from the law
laid down by this Court in the judgment in case of Murlidhar (supra) that
the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error inasmuch as the Dy.
Director of Education was not competent to decide as to whether the
WP-1317-15 5/5
petitioner could manage the affairs of the trust or not.
Hence for the reasons recorded herein above and for the reasons
recorded in the judgment in case of Murlidhar (supra), we allow the writ
petition. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
Asmita
