Bombay High Court
Phoenix Bahuddeshiya Gramin Yuvak ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 24 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:2113-DB
{1}
wp 12884.16 R.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12884 OF 2016
Phoenix Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Yuvak Vikas
Mandal, Khalangri, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur,
through its Secretary
Balaji s/o. Vitthalrao Kalwade
age 56 years, Occ. Agriculture/Secretary,
R/o. Khalangri, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur.
.. Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary,
Sports and Education Department,
Mantralayla Mumbai 32.
2. Deputy Director of Education,
Deputy Director Office,
Latur, Dist. Latur.
3. Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur.
4. Antram s/o. Tukaram Mane,
Age 43 years, Occ. Service as H.M.
R/o. Khalangri, Tq. Ranapur,
Dist. Latur.
5. Ganesh S/o. Narayan Bolange,
Age 42 years, Occ. Member of Petitioner Sanstha,
R/o. Khalangri, Tq. Ranapur,
Dist. Latur.
6. Ganpatrao S/o. Bhagwantrao Mane,
Age 65 years, Occ. Retired Employee &
{2}
wp 12884.16 R.odt
President of Petitioner Sanstha,
R/o. Lecture Colony, Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
.. Respondents.
Mr. R.D. Biradar, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.K. Shirse, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Mr. P.M. Shinde, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Mr. P.B. Jadhav, Adv. For respondent No.6.
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 24th JANUARY, 2024.
Judgment (per S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.) :-
1. The petitioner approached this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs.
"[B] To quash and set aside the communication dated
3.9.2016 and confirm the order dated 22.12.2015 passed by
the petitioner Society as per the Inquiry Report and letter
dated 16.12.2015 of respondent No.3.
[C] Kindly be directed to the respondent No.3 to act as per
the inquiry eport dated 8.7.2015 submitted by the inquiry
officer/Deputy Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Latur.
[D] Kindly be directed to initiate the inquiry against the
Respondents No.3 and 6 for submitting illegal proposal
dated 2.7.2007 of respondent NO.4 for the post of Head
Master and granting the approval dated 10.7.2007 on the
said illegal proposal."
2. The facts leading to the present petition can be summarized
as under :-
{3}
wp 12884.16 R.odt
The respondent No.4 was working as a teacher in a school
run by the petitioner institution. He was promoted as Head Master of the
school as per the order issued by the management. Mr. Satish Salve, who
is another teacher working in the same school, filed W.P. No. 6363 of
2006 before this Court challenging the approval granted to the
appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Head Master. This Court,
after hearing the parties disposed of the writ petition with direction to
the Education Officer to decide the seniority between the respondent
No.4 and Mr Satish Salve. The Education Officer caused detailed inquiry
and passed an order dated 18.6.2007 holding that respondent No.4 is the
senior most teacher and as such entitled to be appointed as Head Master.
3. It appears that the dispute between the management groups
of petitioner trust was pending before the Charity Commissioner at Latur.
The change report submitted by the group of management came to be
rejected vide order dated 27.8.2012 in Inquiry No. 134 of 2006. On the
basis of such decision of the Charity Commissioner, the other group of the
management moved the proceeding before the Education Officer to recall
the approval granted in favour of the respondent no.4 since the proposal
for his approval was initiated by the unauthorised person i.e. whose
name is not appearing as Secretary in Schedule I of the Trust. The
Education Officer informed that it is for the management to take
appropriate decision in the matter. The management passed an order
thereby reverting the respondent No.4 from the post of Head Master and
made representation to the Education Officer to act upon their proposal
seeking reversal of respondent no.4 and appointment of Mr. Satish Salve
on the post of Head Master. The Education Officer caused inquiry into
the representation submitted by Bahujan Adhikari and Karmachari
Mahasangh as well as the petitioner. In that inquiry, it has been opined
{4}
wp 12884.16 R.odt
that the respondent No.5 can not be treated as Secretary of the Trust in
view of the decision given by the Charity Commissioner. Therefore, the
proposal that was moved by him seeking approval to the appointment of
the respondent No.4 as Head Master would be inappropriate.
4. In this background, the petitioner made representation
seeking direction to revert respondent No.4. The Education Officer made
communication with Deputy Director as regards to representation of
petitioner. The petitioner also made request to the Deputy Director of
Education to confirm the reversion order passed by so called
management and accord proposal to grant approval as Head Master in
favour of Mr. Satish Salve. However, on 18 th March, 2016, the Education
Officer refused to accede with the request of the petitioner quoting the
reason that the dispute is pending between the groups of management in
respect of the election/appointment of Trustee/Secretary.
5. Mr. Biradar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Head Master was
not by authorized management. Even, the proposal for approval to his
appointment was moved by the unauthorized person. However, the
Education Officer granted approval in favour of the respondent No.4 vide
impugned order dated 10.7.2007 in collusion with the respondent Nos. 5
and 6. He would submit that in view of the order passed by the learned
Charity Commisioner in Change report Inquiry No. 134 of 2006 dated
27.8.2012, the respondent No.5 was not aurhotized person to submit the
proposal for approval of respondent No.4 on the post of Head Master. He
was not Secretary as per Schedule I. Therefore, the order of appointment
of respondent No.4 and consequential approval granted in his favour is
illegal. He would submit that as per the Inquiry Report dated 8.7.2015
{5}
wp 12884.16 R.odt
submitted by education officer, the aforesaid facts have been confirmed.
However, respondent authorities have not acted upon the aforesaid
inquiry report and proposal moved by the petitioner for reverting
respondent No.4 and granting approval in favour of Mr. Satish Salve as
Head Master. He would, therefore, submit that the impugned order
dated 3.9.2016 by which Education Officer refused to entertain the
proposal of the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. The learned advocates appearing for the respondents submit
that since there is continuous dispute between the two groups of
management, allegations and counter allegations are made and the
Education Officer has already decided the issue of seniority amongst Mr
Satish Salve and respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was the senior-most
teacher in the school and he has been rightly appointed as Head Master.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
the respective parties and also perused the record tendered into service
before us. It is a typical case of dispute among the trustees and
consequential efforts to overpower each other by interfering in the
administration of the school. Apparently, respondent No.4 has been
promoted as Head Master in the year 2007 on the basis of proposal
forwarded to the Education Officer on bahelf of Secretary of the
petitioner trust, the Education Officer approved the appointment of
respondent No.4 on the post of Head Master. However, one of the
employees of the school Mr. Satish Salve filed writ petition before this
court raising the objection to appointment of respondent No.4 on the
post of Head Master, asserting that he is the senior most teacher entitled
for appointment as Head Master. As directed by this Court Education
Officer conducted the inquiry and concluded that the respondent No.4 is
{6}
wp 12884.16 R.odt
the senior most teacher. Thereafter, there was no dispute as regards the
seniority of the respondent No.4 and his entitlement for appointment to
the post of Head Master. Nothing is placed before us to show that Mr.
Satish Salve has challenged the aforesaid decision of the Education
Officer on the point of seniority or such decision being reversed by any
competent authority. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that respondent
No.4 was seniormost teacher in the school and entitled for appointment
on the post of Head Master.
8. It appears that when the aforesaid position was settled in the
year 2007, after 5 years, in view of the decision rendered by the Charity
Commissioner, Latur dated 27.8.2012 in Inquiry No. 134 of 2006, the
change report submitted by the Respondent No. 5 was turned down. On
the basis of such decision the other group of management (now
petitioner before this court) appears to have moved for reversion of
respondent No.4 from the post of Head Master quoting the reason that
his appointment and approval is on the basis proposal of unauthorized
group of management. Although, some inquiry was caused, on such
representation and report dated 22.12.2015 was submitted to the
Education Officer, no further action is taken on the ground that the
dispute between the management groups is still pending.
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find
that in case of dispute between the management groups, the Education
Officer was justified in not interfering in the appointment and approval
of respondent no.4 that is subsisting since year 2007, particularly, when
respondent No.4 was held to be seniormost teacher and entitled to be
appointed as Head Master. We are satisfied that the appointment of
respondent No.4 as Head Master is in accordance with the provisions of
{7}
wp 12884.16 R.odt
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Rules. There is no dispute as regards to the qualification and seniority of
respondent No. 4 to hold the post of Head Master. In such background,
no case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order passed
by the Education Officer in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the petition fails and is
dismissed.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
Signed by: G R TOKE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/02/2024 11:23:13
