Bombay High Court
Benadikar Education Society And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 31 January, 2024
Author: M.M. Sathaye
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:5929-DB
Husen 1 29 WP-154-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 154 OF 2024
Benadikar Education Society And Anr ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
.......
Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwakekar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rajendra
Khaire i/b. A.N. Bandiwadekar, for Petitioner.
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for Respondent No. 4.
Ms. Neha Bhide, 'B' Panel Counsel a/w. Ms. Rupali Shinde, AGP
for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
.......
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 31 JANUARY 2024
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Educational Society and Petitioner No.
2 is a School. Petitioners have challenged order dated 4 October
2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur. The
main ground of challenge is that the Deputy Director did not have
any jurisdiction to pass the order.
3. According to the Petitioners, Respondent No. 4 was appointed
as Shikshan Sevak for 3 years and thereafter, as Assistant Teacher.
Husen 2 29 WP-154-2024.doc
According to the Petitioners, Respondent No. 4 remained absent
from duty without prior intimation or application of leave made to
the Petitioners. It is further the case of the Petitioners, that the
Petitioners called upon Respondent No. 4 to resume the duty and
inform the reason for unauthorized absence. According to
Respondent No. 4, there was no such unauthorized absence.
4. In the impugned order, which is styled like a judgment and
where parties are heard, the Deputy Director has entered into various
disputed issues between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 4 and it
has given a declaration that Respondent No. 4 was absent from 14
October 2017 to 9 August 2018 and this period should be extended
for 10 months and 9 days and the Petitioners should accordingly
submit the proposal to the Education Officer.
5. It is to be noted that even Respondent No. 4 is aggrieved by
the finding that the period as above has been declared as her
unauthorized absence. Respondent No. 4 has filed an Appeal before
the School Tribunal. It is the case of Respondent No. 4 that before
the School Tribunal, the Petitioners are also relying upon the
impugned order passed by the Deputy Director.
6. We deferred the hearing of this Petition on 11 January 2024
till today, recording the question regarding the jurisdiction and
power of the Deputy Director to decide such dispute between the
Petitioner - Society and Respondent - Employee. Nothing is shown
to us as to how the Deputy Director could enter into this dispute and
Husen 3 29 WP-154-2024.doc
give declaration as regards certain service related disputes. Forum is
provided under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools Act, 1977 to the School Tribunal. The State Government
has established a Grievance Committee. In the light thereof, the
impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction is set aside.
7. As regards merits and contentions of the parties are concerned,
we keep them open to be agitated by way of appropriate proceedings.
8. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
9. We again make it clear that the impugned order is set aside
only on the above ground and not on the merits of the dispute.
( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
