Bombay High Court
Shiv Datta Education Trust And Anr vs Rejeshkumar Parasnath And Ors on 25 March, 2025
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
2025:BHC-OS:5067-DB
1 15-WP-1621-2003 (OS).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1621 OF 2003
1. Shiv Datta Education Trust,
A registered Trust under provisions of
the Bombay Public Trust having its registered
office at Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (W),
Mumbai through its Managing Trust viz.
SNEHA Shivram R. Yadav
NITIN
CHAVAN
Digitally signed 2. Head Master,
by SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
Date: 2025.03.28
Shri Raghuvir Madhyamik Vidyalay, Narsipada,
18:35:33 +0530
Akurli Road, Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai - 400 101. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sunilkumar Tribhuvan Singh
Ramlalit Yadav Chawl, Room No. 11,
Akurli Road, Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai - 400 101
2. The Education Inspector (East)
Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai - 400 060.
3. Santoshkumar Gajadhar Palv
R/o Room No. 4, Ramdev Pal's Chawl, Irani
Wadi, Road No.4, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai - 400 101
4. The Principal Secretary, the School
Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 311 OF 2003
1. Shiv Datta Education Trust,
A registered Trust under provisions of
the Bombay Public Trust having its registered
office at Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (W),
Mumbai through its Managing Trust viz.
Sneha Chavan 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2025 10:57:54 :::
2 15-WP-1621-2003 (OS).doc
Shivram R. Yadav
2. Head Master,
Shri Raghuvir Madhyamik Vidyalay, Narsipada,
Akurli Road, Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai - 400 101. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri. Rajeshkumar Parasnath
L.V.S. Complex, Sakinaka,
Mumbai - 400 072.
2. The Education Inspector (East)
Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai - 400 060.
3. The Principal Secretary, the School
Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1623 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 307 OF 2003
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 116 OF 2008
1. Shiv Datta Education Trust,
A registered Trust under provisions of
the Bombay Public Trust having its registered
office at Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (W),
Mumbai through its Managing Trust viz.
Shivram R. Yadav
2. Head Master,
Shri Raghuvir Madhyamik Vidyalay, Narsipada,
Akurli Road, Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai - 400 101. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri. Lalchand L. Patel
Janta Tea House, Ambawadi,
Chanchiki Chawl, Dahisar (East),
Mumbai - 400 068.
Sneha Chavan 2/6
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2025 10:57:54 :::
3 15-WP-1621-2003 (OS).doc
2. The Education Inspector (East)
Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai - 400 060.
3. The Principal Secretary, the School ...Respondents
Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya
****
Mr. Arvind Kothari, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Abhay Patki, Additional Government Pleader for the
Respondent/ State in WP/1621/2023 and 1623/2023.
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sanskruti Yagnik,
Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Milind More, Additional Government Pleader for the
Respondent/ State in WP/1622/2023.
****
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 25th MARCH 2025
: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
1. These writ petitions can be decided by this common
judgment since similar issues arise for consideration.
2. The first respondent in each writ petition came to be
appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevak pursuant to the
Government Resolution dated 27.04.2000 that had been issued to
implement the scheme for appointment of Shikshan Sevak. The
services of each respondent came to be terminated on 30.04.2001.
The said respondents, thereafter, approached the One Member
Grievance Committee by preferring individual complaints. By the
impugned common judgment of the One Member Grievance
Committee dated 11.10.2002, the order of termination was set
aside. The petitioners were directed to reinstate their services on
4 15-WP-1621-2003 (OS).doc
the post of Shikshan Sevak. Each respondent was also held
entitled to payment of honorarium from the date of order of
termination till reinstatement. Costs of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded to
each respondent. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged
the aforesaid common judgment in these writ petitions.
3. We have heard Mr. Arvind Kothari, the learned Counsel for
the Petitioners as well as Mr. Mihir Desai, the learned Senior
Advocate for Respondent No.1. It is common ground that the
Government Resolution dated 27.04.2000 was the subject matter
of challenge in various writ petitions filed before this Court. After
considering the stand of the State Government that the scheme as
framed would be suitably amended, a further Government
Resolution dated 27.07.2001 came to be issued. Subsequently, the
matter reached the Supreme Court. By its judgment dated
04.07.2011, the Supreme Court in the Secretary, Shri. A.P.D. Jain
Pathshala and others v/s. Shivaji Bhagwat More and Ors. (Civil
Appeal No. 4988 of 2011) held in paragraphs 21 to 23 as under:
" 21. If a Grievance Committee opines that the
termination or cancellation of appointment of a
Shikshan Sevak was bad, the State Government may
consider such opinion/recommendation and if it
decides to accept it, take appropriate action by
directing the school to take back the Shikshan Sevak,
and if the school fails to comply, take such action as is
permissible including stoppage of the grant. An opinion
by the Grievance Committee that the termination of the
services of a Shikshan Sevak is illegal can not however
have the effect of either reinstating the employee into
service, nor deemed to be a declaration that the
Shikshan Sevak continues to be an employee of school.
5 15-WP-1621-2003 (OS).doc
Even if a Shikshan Sevak is wrongly removed, the
department could only direct the school to take him
back into service and if it does not comply, take action
permissible in law for disobedience of its directions.
22. Therefore the decision of the committee dated
28.7.2006 is not an enforceable or executable order but
only a recommendation that can be made the basis by
the Education Department to issue appropriate
directions. It is needless to add that persons aggrieved
by such directions of the state government will be
entitled to challenge such directions either before the
civil court or in a writ proceedings.
23. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed and
the orders dated 2.5.2008 and 5.8.2008, are set aside.
The order of the Grievance Committee is treated as a
recommendation rendered for the benefit of the
Education Department which can on the basis of the
said opinion take appropriate action in accordance with
law. It is also open to the Shikshan Sevak to seek
appropriate remedy if he is aggrieved by his
termination, in accordance with law.
4. In the light of the aforesaid binding law laid down by the
Supreme Court, we find that the parties would be governed by the
same. Accordingly, the following directions are issued :-
a) Leave granted to the petitioners to implead the State
Government through its the Principal Secretary, the Ministry
of School Education as respondent in each writ petition. The
amendment to be carried out forthwith. The learned
Additional Government Pleader waives notice for newly
added respondent.
6 15-WP-1621-2003 (OS).doc
b) The Principal Secretary, the School Education and
Sports Department shall consider the recommendations
made in the common judgment of One Member Grievance
Committee dated 11.10.2002 in accordance with the
decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of the Secretary,
Shri. A.P.D. Jain Pathshala and others (supra) and take
further steps accordingly. To facilitate consideration of the
recommendation as made by the One Member Grievance
Committee, an opportunity shall be given to the Petitioners
as well as to the concerned respondent/s in each writ
petition to enable a further decision be taken on that basis.
c) To facilitate the consideration of the aforesaid, the
parties shall appear before the Principal Secretary on
15.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. A decision in accordance with law
be taken within eight weeks from that date. It is clarified
that all aspects on merits are kept open. In addition, the
liberty as contained in paragraph 23 of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the matter of the Secretary, Shri. APD
Jain Pathshala and others (supra), is granted to the first
respondent in each writ petition.
5. Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs. Pending Interim Application/s are also disposed of.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
