Bombay High Court
Gramin Vikas Sanstha,Hinganghat ... vs The State Of Mah. & 2 Others on 8 December, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp1972.00
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1972 OF 2000.
1.Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Hinganghat,
Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha,
through its President Dr. (Ms). Neesha
Zoting, resident of Hinganghat.
2.Prof. Divakar Game,
Secretary, Gramin Vikas Sanstha,
Hinganghat, Tahsil Hinganghat,
District Wardha,
resident of Hinganghat. ....PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Education, Mantralaya Extension
Building, Mumbai - 400 032.
2.Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3.Joint Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4.Smt. Usha wd/o Arun Thute,
Aged about 50 years, resident
of Hinganghat, Taluq Hinganghat,
District Wardha. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:20 :::
Judgment wp1972.00
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
None for Respondent No.4.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Petitioner - Management assails communication dated
10.05.2000, and order dated 29.04.2000, granting stay of the order dated
06.04.2000.
2. By order dated 06.04.2000, respondent no.3 has accepted the
amount of recovery on account of salary paid to 12 extra teachers, and
dismissed the proceedings filed before him by respondent no.4.
3. Short submission of learned counsel for petitioners is, petitioners
then pointed out to respondent no.3 its readiness and willingness to refund
Judgment wp1972.00
the excess amount, but, had prayed only for installments.
4. On merits, learned counsel invites our attention to paragraph
no.11 (ii). He contends that in Regulation 97.4 of the Secondary School
Code, order passed by respondent no.3 on 06.04.2000, is final and no
further proceedings therefore can lie against it with respondent no.1.
5. None appears for respondent no.4.
6. Learned A.G.P. for other respondents submits that in earlier round
of litigation i.e. in Writ Petition No. 2555/1998, Division Bench of this Court
on 12.01.2000, directed expeditious consideration of appeal, then pending.
That appeal was filed by respondent no.4. The appeal was decided on
06.04.2000, and thereafter, respondent no.4 approached respondent no.1
State Government. In that proceedings on 29.04.2000, State Government
stayed order of respondent no.3.
7. Learned A.G.P. has also taken us through the provisions of
Regulation 97.1 to 97.4.
Judgment wp1972.00
8. We have perused Regulation No.97.1 and 97.2. It is on the subject
of reduction in grants. 97.1 permits powers to be exercised after giving
necessary opportunity to the school, if it is found that the provisions of Rules
or then standards are not followed and efficiency in general is, deteriorated.
9. The deductions in non-salary grants envisage in Regulation 97.1, is
after full opportunity to management to furnish its explanation.
10. Regulation no.97.2 enables withdrawal or reduction in grants in
case of gross mismanagement, serious deterioration of standard of efficiency
and discipline etc., without allowing management full opportunity of
explanation. Thus, Regulation 97.2 prima facie appears to be a more
drastic power.
11. Regulation 97.3 permits management an opportunity to file appeal
to Director against directions issued under Regulation 97.1 or 97.2.
Regulation 97.4 gives finality to decision of Director in Appeal under
Regulation 97.3.
12. Here the order impugned in Writ Petition No. 2555/1998 was of
Judgment wp1972.00
recovery of grants paid on account of salary of 12 teachers found recruited
in excess unauthorizedly. It was therefore, not a non-salary grant or then
not an order either withdrawing or reducing grants.
13. The arguments then advanced before the Division Bench were
that an appeal against the order of recovery was already filed and pending.
Statutory sanction for such appeal was not required to be gone into by that
Division Bench. Accepting the fact of pendency of appeal, and willingness of
State Government/Joint Director to decide it, Writ Petition was disposed of
with a direction to decide it. Accordingly, that appeal came to be decided
on 06.04.2000 by respondent no.3.
14. As we are not in a position to treat the appeal decided as one
under Regulation 97.3. We are not in a position to accept the contentions
which emerged from ground no. (II) in Writ Petition.
15. However, the order dated 06.04.2000 was not questioned by the
petitioner Management and they had shown their readiness and willingness
to refund the amount in suitable installments. In this situation, no prejudice
has been caused to respondent no.4 because of readiness and willingness
Judgment wp1972.00
shown by petitioners.
16. We therefore, find that even today the petitioner management can
very well pay the amount, however, we direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to
recover that amount in 6 equal installments.
17. With these directions, we dispose of the Writ Petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
