Vidya Vikas Mandal, Lakhandur ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9578 Bom

              wp2518of2013.odt                                                                          1/6

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                             Writ Petition NO. 2518 OF 2013

               PETITIONERS:                           1.      Vidya  Vikas Mandal,  Lakhandur, Distt., 
                                                              Bhandara,   through   its   President,   Smt. 
                                                              Kavita  Sadashiv   Donadkar,   Aged   about 
                                                              56   years,   R/o   Navegaon   (Murkhala), 
                                                              Post Mudza, Tah. & Dist. Gadchiroli. 

                                                      2.      Smt. Kavita Sadashiv Donadkar, 
                                                              Aged   about   56   years,   Headmistress, 
                                                              Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya, Navegaon, 
                                                              R/o Navegaon (Murkhala), Post Mudza, 
                                                              Tah. & Dist. Gadchrioli. 

                                                      3.
                                                       Prabhakar s/o Sadashiv Donadkar, 
                                                       Aged   about   52   years,   Member, 
                                                       Managing   Committee,   R/o   Navegaon 
                                                       (Murkhala), Post Mudza, 
                                                       Tah. & Dist. Gadchiroli.
                                                                      
                                                      
                                                           -VERSUS-


               RESPONDENTS: 1.                                State of Maharashtra, 

through its Secretary, Ministry of

Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

3 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.

4. Sadashiv s/o Shivaji Donadkar, Aged about 79 years, styling himself as Secretary of the Trust, Occu: Retired, R/o Navegaon (Murkhala), Post Mudza, Tah & Dist. Gadchiroli.

wp2518of2013.odt 2/6

Shri. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for petitioners. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Shri N.S. Rao, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 to 3.

CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE AND M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ DATED: 13th DECEMBER, 2017.

Judgment (Per R.K.Deshpande, J)

1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order

dated 29th April, 2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Education,

Nagpur holding that the petitioner no.2- Smt. Kavita Sadashiv

Donadkar who was acting as the Headmistress of the School is at

liberty to challenge her termination from services on 13th August,

2012 by preferring a statutory appeal under Section-9 of the

Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service)

Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "the Act of 1977"). It further holds

that till the termination of the petitioner no.2 is set aside, the

senior most teacher in the school should be conferred with the

administrative and financial powers by the Education Officer

(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.

2. The contention of Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners is that this order is liable to be set

wp2518of2013.odt 3/6

aside on the ground that the respondent no.4 who terminated the

services of the petitioner No.2, had no authority to pass such order

in view of the order dated 8th February, 2012, passed by the

Education Officer, which was confirmed by this Court by

dismissing the writ petition No. 1385/2012 on 9th July, 2012. The

another contention of Shri R.L. Khapre is that the Deputy Director

had passed an order dated 19th November, 2012 cancelling the

powers given to senior most teacher Shri S.R. Mahakulkar on 7th

November, 2012 to administer the school and therefore the

impugned order, amounts to review of the earlier order dated 19th

November, 2012.

3. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.4 has relied upon the order passed by this Court in

writ petition No. 4491/2012 decided on 28th February, 2013

permitting the respondent no.4 to make representation to the

Deputy Director of Education against his earlier order dated 19 th

November, 2012. He submits that in view of the order passed by

this Court, the Deputy Director of Education got jurisdiction and

after considering the rival submissions, the order impugned was

passed on 29th April, 2013, which cannot be said to be without

jurisdiction.

wp2518of2013.odt 4/6

4. It is not in dispute that the management of the school

was represented by only three persons, who are from the same

family and there was dispute between them. As regards, the

management of the Educational Institution, in the order dated 9 th

July, 2012 passed in writ petition No.1385/2012 challenging the

decision of the Education Officer given on 8th February, 2012, this

Court had taken into consideration the contention that the

Education Officer has passed an order in relation to the

administration and management of the affairs of the Trust, which

amounts to usurping the jurisdiction/Charity Commissioner under

Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act ("the Act of

1977"). This Court confirms the order of the Education Officer

passed on 8th February, 2012 but made it subject to the result of

the proceedings under Section 41A of the Act of 1977.

5. It is not in dispute that the order of terminating the

services of the petitioner no.2 was passed on 13th August, 2012 by

the respondent no.4. It was not by majority of the trustees as per

the order passed by the Education Officer on 8th February, 2012.

In view of this, we find that the Deputy Director of Education could

not have cancelled his earlier order dated 19th November, 2012 by

wp2518of2013.odt 5/6

assuming the jurisdiction in terms of the decision of this Court

delivered on 28th February, 2013 in writ petition No. 4491/2012.

The order of the Deputy Director impugned cannot therefore be

sustained.

6. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar learned counsel for the

respondent no.4 has urged that the Deputy Director has granted

liberty to the petitioner no.2 to challenge the termination by

invoking the jurisdiction of the school tribunal under Section 9 of

the Act of 1977 and therefore this Court should not interfere in

such order in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India. We are well aware of this legal position.

We are not going into the merits of the controversy involved but

we are restricting ourselves to challenge the order of termination

on the ground of competency of the respondent no.4 to pass such

an order which is contrary to the order dated 8th February, 2012

passed by Education Officer which was confirmed in Writ Petition

No. 1385/2012.

7. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The

order dated 29th April, 2013 passed by Dy. Director of Education is

hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order of dismissal

wp2518of2013.odt 6/6

of the petitioner no.2 passed on 13th August, 2012 by the

respondent no.4 without any authority is also hereby quashed and

set aside.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as

to costs.

                                               JUDGE                                          JUDGE 

              nandurkar