Bombay High Court
Chunnilal S/O Hariji Pardhi And Others vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Tribal ... on 9 April, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:3755-DB
-- 1 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2251 OF 2024
1. Chunnilal S/o Hariji Pardhi
age- Major, Occ : Service (Principal)
R/o. At Post Brahmapuri, Tahsil
Brahmapuri, District Chandrapur
2. Subhash S/o Lakhaji Shivankar,
age - Major, Occ : Service
R/o C/o Lakhaji Shivankar, At Post
Pavirmuranda, Tahsil Chamorshi,
Pavirmuranda, District Gadchiroli,
Pin Code : 442603
3. Harsha w/o Rushi Naitam,
age - 48 years, Occ : Service,
R/o. C/o Shrikant Madavi, at post
Sawalkheda, Tahsil Kurkheda,
District Gadchiroli - 441217
4. Varsha D/o Rajeramjee Dahake,
age - 46 years, Occ : Service,
R/o. C/o Rameshwar Rakhade, .. Petitioners
At and Post Nanohari,
District Chandrapur - 441206
5. Ravindra S/o Cheptuji Madavi,
age - 52, Occ : Service,
R/o. C/o. Cheptuji Madavi, Gokul
Nagar, Ward No.22, Gadchiroli,
District Gadchiroli - 442605
6. Abhayrao Vithobaji Tammiwar
age - Major, Occ : Service,
R/o. C/o. Vithobaji Tammiwar,
Ward No.1, Talodhi Mokasa,
District Gadchiroli - 442603
7. Sujeet S/o Gangadhar Urade,
age - Major, Occ : Service,
R/o. At C/o. Gangadhar Urade,
Hanuman Nagar, Ward No.1,
At Post & Tahsil Chamorshi,
District Gadchiroli - 442603
PAGE 1 OF 14
-- 2 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
8. Devnanda Krushnaji Kalbandhe
age - Major, Occ : Service,
R/o. C/o. Krushnaji Kalbandhe,
At Post Lanjeda, District Gadchiroli
9. Chetram S/o Manohar Nissar
age - 43 years, Occ : Service,
R/o. C/o. Manohar Nissar, .. Petitioners
At Post Gadchiroli,
District - Gadchiroli
10. Lata D/o Paikaji Kankalwar
age - Major, Occ : Service,
R/o. C/o. Paikaji Kankalwar
At Post Kotgul, Tahsil Gadchiroli,
District Gadchiroli
11. Jyoti D/o Baburao Kamidwar
age - Major, Occ : Service,
R/o. C/o. Baburao Kamidwar,
At Post Chamorshi,
Tahsil and District Gadchiroli
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary, Tribal
Development Department for the
State of Maharashtra, Madam Kama
Road, Mantralya, Mumbai 400032
2. The Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department
Commissionerate, Tribal
st
Development Bhavan, 1 Floor, Ram .. Respondents
Ganesh Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra
Road, Nashik : 422002
3. Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department
Office of the Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development
Department, Nagpur Division,
Giripeth, Nagpur - 440010
4. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development
Project, Gadchiroli, Office of the
PAGE 2 OF 14
-- 3 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
Project Officer, Integrated Tribal
Development Project Gadchiroli,
Complex Area, Near LIC Office,
District Gadchiroli 442605
5. Semana Vidya Va Vanvikas
Prashikshan Mandal, Gadchiroli
through its Director Kishor
Waddettiwar, C/o.Vijay Waddettiwar,
"Rainfall Niwas", Potegaon bypass,
Gadchiroli 442605
6. Navjyot Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
through its Secretary, Dattatray
Shriram Lahane, Address : Navjyot
.. Respondents
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Lavhala,
Taluka Mehkar, District Buldhana
7. Shiv Sai Anudanit Aadiwavi Aashram
Shala, Janefal through the Head
Master Sandeep Dnyandeo Kale
Address: Shiv Sai Anudanit Aadiwavi
Aashram Shala, Janefal, Taluka
Mehkar, District Buldhana
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8162 OF 2022
1. Nitin Balkrushna Dange
age-48 years, Occ:Service (Teacher)
R/o.C/o.Balkrushna Dange,
Potegaon Road Near Wadettiwar
House, Kannamwar Nagar, Ward
No.18, Gadchiroli 442603 .. Petitioners
2. Rajesh S/o. Digambar Yelke
age 40 years, Occ: Service (Teacher)
R/o.House No.705, Vivekanand
Colony, Parsar, Ward No.02, Near
New Hanuman Temple, Thana Petrol
Pump, Bhandara 441906
3. Avinash Ramkrushna Despande
age 41 years, Occ : Service (Peon)
R/o. Ward No.2, At/Po Pavimuranda
Tahsil Chamorshi, District Gadchiroli,
Pavimuranda - 442603
PAGE 3 OF 14
-- 4 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
4. Harish S/o Balujee Jettiwar
age 44 years, Occ:Service (Teacher),
R/o.C/o. Baluji Jettiwar, Gavharpura,
Ward No.3, Chamorshi,
Gadchiroli 442603
5. Anil Kumar S/o Rupchand Borkar
age 51 years, Occ:Service (Warden)
R/o. Devhadi, Tahsil Tumsar,
Stationtoli, Tumsar Road,
Bhandara - 441913
6. Thaneshwar Sukhiram Kothare
age 40 years, Occ:Service (Jr.Clerk)
R/o. C/o Sukhiram Kothare,
Kunghada, Kunghada Raiyyatwan,
Chamorshi, Gadchiroli - 442603
7. Shyamrao Baburao Walke
age 43 years, Occ:Service (Cook)
C/o. Baburao Walke, Gandhi Chowk
Ward No.2, Chikmara, .. Petitioners
Tmbegadimendha,
Chandrapur - 441215
8. Bahadur S/o Baban Padwal
age 42 years, Occ : Service (Cook)
R/o C/o Baban Singh Padwal, Ward
No.01, Pavimuranda, Tahsil
Chamorshi, Gadchiroli - 442603
9. Suryabhan s/o Baliram Londe
age 51 years, Occ : Service
C/o Baliram Londhe, behind Bhaji
Mandi, At Shitalwadi,
Post K.K.Nagar, Tahsil Ramtek,
District Nagpur 441106
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary,
Tribal Development Department for
the State of Maharashtra, Madam
Kama Road, Mantralya, Mumbai
400032
PAGE 4 OF 14
-- 5 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
2. The Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department
Commissionerate, Tribal
st
Development Bhavan, 1 Floor, Ram
Ganesh Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra
Road, Nashik : 422002
3. The Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department
Office of the Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development
Department, Nagpur Division,
Giripeth, Nagpur - 440010
4. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development
Project, Gadchiroli, Office of the
Project Office, Integrated Tribal
.. Respondents
Development Project, Gadchiroli,
Complex Area, Near LIC Office,
District Gadchiroli 442605
5. Semana Vidya Va Vanvikas
Prashikshan Mandal, Gadchiroli,
through its Director, Kishor
Waddettiwar, C/o.Vijay Waddettiwar,
"Rainfall Niwas", Potegaon bypass,
Gadchiroli - 442605
6. The Head Master/Principal,
Shivani Adivasi Secondary & Higher
Secondary, Ashram School,
Pavimuranda, District Gadchiroli
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.R. Dambhare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. N.B.Kirtane, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Mr. S.M.Vaishnav, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 & 7(intervenor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 09, 2025
PAGE 5 OF 14
-- 6 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
JUDGMENT (PER : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Heard. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
(2) Both these petitions question the validity of Government
Resolution (GR) dated 04/12/2023 issued by respondent No.1 as
unconstitutional being ultra-virus to Article 14 of the Constitution, void,
and arbitrary, therefore, transfer of the Ashram School run by
respondent No.5 - the NGO namely the Semana Vidya Va Vanvikas
Prashikshan Mandal, Gadchiroli to respondent No.6 - Navjyot Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Lavhala, Taluka Mehkar, District Buldhana, is claimed
to be contrary to the GR dated 19/12/2016.
(3) The petitioners in both these petitions were appointed by
respondent No.5 authorities to officiate as teachers and other non-
teaching posts of Class - III and Class - IV in the Shivani Adiwasi
Secondary and Higher Secondary, Ashram School, Pavimuranda,
District Gadchiroli (hereinafter referred to as "Ashram School") which
is government aided, run by respondent No.5 NGO, namely, Semana
Vidya Va Vanvikas Prashikshan Mandal, Gadchiroli (for short,
"Respondent No.5 NGO"). The Ashram School receives 100% grant-in-
aid from respondent No. 1. It was governed according to the terms and
PAGE 6 OF 14
-- 7 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
conditions, as well as under the guidance, financial aid, and statutory
mandate of the State of Maharashtra through the Tribal Development
Department. The respondent, No. 5 NGO, confirmed the petitioners'
appointments as permanent to their respective posts. The respondents
Nos. 1 to 4 duly approved their services. Respondent No.1 had issued
various GRs from time to time to ensure the smooth running of
management and governance of the Ashram Schools throughout the
State of Maharashtra.
(4) The Ashram School was facing tremendous hardship, with
several basic facilities lacking, including inadequate infrastructure,
insufficient electricity, and a shortage of daily necessities, which led to
a decline in student admissions. The petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition
No.2251/2024 while working as Principal/Headmaster of the said
Ashram School have repeatedly made several representations to the
various authorities to ensure smooth running of the Ashram School, but
due to maladministration and inaction on the part of respondent No.5
NGO, not only the employees including the petitioners, but also
students and local people were facing hardship and the said Ashram
School was on the verge of closing down. The same was noted by
respondent No. 3 in its letters dated 14/07/2016, 12/03/2018,
14/08/2020, and 26/05/2022, which forwarded the proposal to
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate action for the derecognition of the
PAGE 7 OF 14
-- 8 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
said Ashram School. However, this action was stayed by the GR dated
10/06/2019. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have not taken any positive
steps to provide the necessary educational materials, infrastructure,
electricity, food, and other essential items required for the smooth
functioning of the Ashram School.
(5) Respondent No. 3, vide communication dated
17/10/2022, requested Respondent No. 2 to guide its office on how to
temporarily absorb teaching and non-teaching staff from Ashram
School into other Ashram Schools, so that their salaries can be
released. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 noted that respondent No. 5 did
not provide the educational materials and facilities to the Ashram
School; accordingly, the petitioners were temporarily absorbed into
service in other Ashram Schools through a separate notification. The
respondent No.5 played fraud with petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to
4 and prepared forged and fabricated minutes of the meeting, evincing
that petitioners have given their consent for the transfer of the Ashram
School from village Pavimuranda, District Gadchiroli, to respondent
No.6 Navjyot Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Lavhala, Taluka Mehkar,
District Buldhana. (for short, "Respondent No.6.-institution") When
petitioners and other teachers and non-teaching staff came to know
about the said act of respondent No.5, they raised an objection vide
representation dated 05/06/2023, however, the respondent Nos.1 to 3
PAGE 8 OF 14
-- 9 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
ignored the GRs dated 19/12/2016, 29/04/2017, 11/06/2019 and
issued another GR dated 04/12/2023, thereby transferred the Ashram
School from village Pavimuranda, District Gadchiroli to respondent No.6
institution, hence this petition.
(6) The thrust of the argument of Mr. Dambhare, learned
counsel for the petitioners was that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has not
considered GR dated 19/12/2016 and issued fresh GR dated
04/12/2023, whereby erred in permitting to transfer the Ashram School
to respondent No.6 institution and therefore, the issuance of the said
GR is contrary to the earlier GR's dated 19/12/2016, 29/04/2017 and
11/06/2019, thus, the same is void and arbitrary.
(7) He further contended that the Ashram School had been
derecognised; however, the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had ignored this
fact and erred in granting permission to transfer the Ashram School to
respondent No. 6, the institution. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 acted
contrary to the dictum laid down in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Sanstha and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2019) 20
SCC 564 and Jeevanjyoti Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs.
State of Maharashtra and others (2012) 6 Mah.L.J. 836, as once the
existing School is derecognised, original recognition ceases to exist and
such derecognised School cannot be transferred. Hence, he urged that
PAGE 9 OF 14
-- 10 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
the petition be allowed.
(8) Mr.Ghurde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents No.1 to 4; Mr. Kirtane, learned counsel for respondent
No.5; and Mr. Vaishnav, learned counsel for intervenors/respondent
Nos. 6 and 7, vehemently oppose the petitions on the grounds that the
petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the GR dated 04/12/2023,
as they are neither affected persons nor parties. Besides, the
petitioners have given their consent to transfer the said Ashram School.
(9) They further argued that the petitioners have not
approached the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the
material fact that 7 petitioners out of 11 in Writ Petition No. 2251/2024
have already been absorbed in other schools by way of an order dated
22/07/2023. Similarly, 2 petitioners in connected Writ Petition No.
8162/2022 were also absorbed in other schools by orders dated
14/08/2023 and 11/08/2023. However, the petitioners have
suppressed the said fact from the Court on that ground alone, the
petitions are liable to be dismissed. Lastly, it is submitted that
respondents Nos. 6 and 7 are ready to absorb the remaining petitioners
into their School, but they are not willing to join their services; as such,
the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as claimed.
PAGE 10 OF 14
-- 11 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
(10) The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has also
brought to our notice the order dated 22/07/2023 and argued that the
management raised no grievance regarding the issuance of the GR.
Moreover, no students were admitted to the other School. Therefore,
nobody would be affected by the issuance of the said GR transferring
the Ashram School to the respondent No. 6 institution. Hence, they
urged the dismissal of both these petitions.
(11) At the outset, the petitioners are challenging the issuance
of the GR dated 04/12/2023 as unconstitutional, invalid and arbitrary
and prayed for striking down the same as contrary to the GR dated
19/12/2016. However, on perusal of Rule 4.3.1.3, it reveals that the
Government is empowered to issue GR for change in management,
transfer/shifting of the Ashram School to another place, so we would
like to reproduce the said Rule as under :-
^^4-3-1-3 O;oLFkkiukrhy cny @ vkJe'kkGk gLrkarj @ LFkykarj
O;oLFkkiukrhy cny] vkJe'kkGk gLrkarj o LFkykarj ckcrhr
'kklukus osGksosGh fofgr dsysY;k 'kklu fu.kZ;kuqlkj dk;Zokgh
dj.;kr ;sbZy-**
(12) On perusal of the absorption order dated 22/07/2023
(page 152), it appears that 7 petitioners out of 11 have been absorbed
into other Ashram Schools. Likewise, upon perusing the orders dated
14/08/2023 and 11/08/2023, it is revealed that two petitioners in the
PAGE 11 OF 14
-- 12 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
connected petition have been absorbed into another School. Apart from
this, it is pertinent to note that respondents Nos. 6 and 7, by filing their
reply, have categorically stated that they are ready to absorb the
remaining petitioners into their School. Moreover, the petitioners in
paragraphs 6 and 7 acknowledged that the School was facing
tremendous hardship and lacked several basic facilities, including
inadequate infrastructure, insufficient electricity, and a shortage of
daily necessities, which led to a decline in admissions at the
aforementioned Ashram School. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have also
reiterated the said facts.
(13) The respondent No. 1 had issued a GR dated
23/08/2023, wherein detailed guidelines were set forth regarding the
migration and transfer of closed or derecognised tribal-aided Ashram
Schools to other interested institutions. It also prescribed procedures
for transferring the Asaram school to another institution, by following
the guidelines provided in the GR above. Pursuant to said guidelines
and following the procedures, the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 transferred
the Ashram School to respondent No. 6, the institution, and a GR dated
04/12/2023 was issued.
(14) It further appears that as per Rule 4.3.1.3, the State
Government is empowered to issue GRs from time to time, therefore, it
PAGE 12 OF 14
-- 13 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
cannot be said that issuance of the GR dated 23/08/2023 and
04/12/2023 by respondent No.1 is contrary to the GRs dated
19/12/2016, 29/04/2017 and 11/06/2019, therefore, the grievance of
the petitioners clearly appars to be unjustified.
(15) The petitioners question the G.R. dated 04.12.2023 only
on the ground that the Ashram school was derecognized and,
therefore, it cannot be transferred to respondent No. 6, the institution.
Similarly, as per the G.R. dated 19/12/2016, the Ashram school cannot
be transferred beyond 10 k.m. Also, they relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha (supra)
and the judgment of this Court in Jeevanjyoti Krida and Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal (supra). Upon perusal of the same, it appears that the
Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have not dealt with the GR dated
23/08/2023 issued by respondent No. 1, nor was the said G.R. placed
before them. By the said G.R., the government permits the transfer,
shifting or relocation of all closed or derecognized aided Ashram
Schools anywhere in the State. The said GR makes it clear that there is
no area restriction applicable to transferring the said School from one
place to another within the State, and other terms and conditions have
been laid down in the said GR. The respondents No. 5 and 6, after
following the guidelines and procedures as laid down in the G.R. dated
23.08.2023, and respondent No. 1, upon satisfying itself, issued G.R.
PAGE 13 OF 14
-- 14 -- WP No.2251.2024 + 1 (J).doc
dated 04.12.2023, thereby permitting the shift of the Asharam school
with a change of management and transferring the same to respondent
No. 6, the institution. Therefore, in our view, the dictum laid down in
the decisions above is hardly of any assistance to the petitioners in
support of their claim.
(16) Considering the above discussion, we do not find merit in
the petitioners' contention. Consequently, both petitions, being bereft
of merit, stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
(17) Rule is discharged.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] [ AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. ]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 14 OF 14
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/04/2025 15:37:24
