Bombay High Court
Gram Vikas Mandal, Ranjangaon ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 May, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:13298-DB
4735.09wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4735 OF 2009
Gram Vikas Mandal, Ranjangaon Shenpunji,
Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad,
A Public Trust Registration No.F1334,
Through its Secretary,
Shri. Manohar s/o Shivram Phalke,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o: Ranjangaon Shenpunji,
Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
(School Education),
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State,
Administrative Building,
District : Pune
3. The Divisional Deputy
Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate a/w Mr Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for
petitioner
Mr Amar V. Lavte, A.G.P. for respondents/State
4735.09wp
(2)
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 4th February, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 6th May, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties at the stage of final
hearing.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner/Management has challenged the order dated
13/04/2007, passed by the Divisional Deputy Direction of Education,
Aurangabad, respondent No.3, cancelling the recognition of its
secondary school from the academic session 2006-2007.
3. By the order of this Court dated 06/10/2010, this petition
was admitted and interim relief was rejected. Today, the matter is
heard for final hearing.
4. The factual setup leading to the instant petition is stated
below in nutshell :-
4735.09wp
(a) The Government of Maharashtra had granted permission
to the petitioner/Management to run a secondary school at
Ranjangaon Shenpunji in the year 1992-1993.
(b) Accordingly, the school was started on non-grant basis,
which later on came on partial grants i.e. 25% w.e.f. year 1995-
1996 and later on from year 1998-1999, it started receiving
100% grant-in-aid.
(c) During year 2000-2001, the Government sanctioned six
divisions to the petitioner on non-grant basis and accordingly,
the petitioner/Management appointed trained teachers, whose
appointment were approved by the Government.
(d) In the year 2003, the teachers working in the school raised
a grievance relating to non-payment of their salary and other
dues, pursuant to which, the Education Officer, respondent No.4
conducted enquiry. The Education Officer forwarded a proposal
by letter dated 21/11/2005 to the Deputy Director of Education
for taking action for derecognition of the school under Rule 7.4
of the Secondary School Code.
4735.09wp
(e) On 29/12/2005, hearing was given to the parties and the
petitioner/Management was informed by letter dated 08/02/2006
to comply with the shortcomings by 31/03/2006.
(f) The teachers working in the school filed Writ Petition
No.7440/2005 in this Court inter alia raising several grievances
mainly relating to non-payment of their salary. By order dated
01/03/2006, the petition was disposed of directing the
respondents to decide the grievances of the petitioners therein
within a period of two months.
(g) Since the grievances of the employees were not redressed
by the Management, the Divisional Deputy Director of
Education, respondent No.3, issued order dated 29/04/2006
thereby derecognising the school from the end of academic year
2005-2006.
(h) Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner
/Management preferred appeal before the Director of Education
(respondent No.2).
(i) On the basis of undertaking submitted by the
petitioner/Management, respondent No.2 allowed the petitioner
4735.09wp
to continue the recognition of the school from academic year
2006-2007, on condition that if the shortcomings and
deficiencies are not removed, the school shall be derecognised.
(j) Despite the specific directions, the deficiencies
/shortcomings were not removed and therefore, the Education
Officer, respondent No.4 inspected the school and conducted a
thorough enquiry. He submitted a report to the Divisional
Deputy Director of Education reporting non-fulfillment of the
conditions imposed on the petitioner/Management and non-
removal of the deficiencies. By letter dated 28/02/2007, the
Education Officer recommended derecognition of the school.
(k) Pursuant to the report/letter dated 28/02/2007 and
considering the earlier conduct of the petitioner/Management,
the Divisional Deputy Director of Education, respondent No.3
recommended derecognition of the school to the Director of
Education, respondent No.2 by letter dated 03/03/2007.
(l) On considering the letter dated 03/03/2007 and previous
orders/directions of respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Director of
Education communicated to the Divisional Deputy Director of
4735.09wp
Education by letter dated 03/04/2007 to derecognise the school
run by the petitioner/Management.
(m) By order dated 13/04/2007, the Divisional Deputy
Director of Education, Aurangabad passed order of
derecognition of the school run by the petitioner/Management
from the end of academic session 2006-2007. The petitioner has
challenged this order of derecognition by way of the instant
petition.
5. Respondent No.1/State of Maharashtra has filed its
affidavit-in-reply dated 12/08/2009, justifying the impugned decision
of derecognition. Apart from this, respondent No.4, Deputy Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad also filed affidavit
dated 23/02/2024, supporting the impugned order.
6. To controvert the stand of the respondents, the petitioner
filed affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 23/03/2010.
7. Learned advocate V. D. Salunke alongwith learned
advocate Avishkar Shelke appearing for the petitioner vehemently
submits that the impugned order is grossly arbitrary and illegal. He
submits that the petitioner/Management has meticulously complied
4735.09wp
with the provisions of the Secondary School Code and the alleged
grievance made by the teachers was already redressed. He further
submits that the teachers have been paid regular salary and the
petitioner/Management has complied with the directions issued by
respondent Nos.3 and 4 and all the shortcomings were already
removed. He submits that the Assistant Teachers, who had earlier filed
the writ petition had submitted the representation dated 14/10/2007
informing the respondents/authorities that their grievances against the
Headmaster were resolved. He invites our attention to the
representations dated 14/10/2007, 25/01/2008, 05/02/2008 and
19/03/2008, which are filed on record at Exhibit 'Q' collectively. He
also submits that due to derecognition of the school, the residents in
the surrounding villages are suffering and they all are insisting for
restarting the school. He also submits that the respondents/authorities
have failed to grant sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner/Management and therefore the impugned order is
challenged, terming it to be arbitrary and illegal.
8. In support of their submissions, learned advocates rely
upon following reported judgments :-
(I) Chandrika Jha Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1984
Supreme Court 322;
4735.09wp
(II) Babaji Kondaji Garad and others Vs. Nasik Merchants
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and others, AIR 1984 Supreme
Court 192;
(III) Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd.
and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 511; and
(IV) Maharashtra Land Development Corporation and others
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2010 AIR SCW 7114.
By referring to these judgments, they vehemently submit
that the impugned decision is arbitrary and grossly illegal by which
respondents have abused the power under Rule 7.4 of the Secondary
School Code. By referring to the judgment in the matter of Babaji
Kondaji Garad and others (supra), they vehemently submit that law is
settled that when a statute requires certain things to be done in certain
manner, it can be done in that manner alone unless the contrary
indication is found in the statute. They, therefore, submit that
respondent Nos.3 and 4 have failed to meticulously comply with the
provisions of the Secondary School Code.
9. Per contra, Advocate Amar V. Lavte, learned A.G.P. for
respondents makes strenuous submissions to oppose the petition. He
submits that the impugned order is passed by respondent No.3 after
considering the grave deficiencies and shortcomings as reflected in the
impugned order dated 13/04/2007. He submits that respondent No.3
4735.09wp
has duly exercised the power vested in him under Rule 7.4 of the
Secondary School Code and in accordance with the provisions of Rule
7.1 thereof, the impugned order of derecognition is just and proper. He
submits that the school run by the petitioner has committed breach of
the terms and conditions as mentioned in Rule 3.2 of the Secondary
School Code and despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the
deficiencies were not removed. By referring to the affidavit dated
23/02/2024, he submits that, at present, in the vicinity of the said
school, there are other five schools which are being run and
administered by other Managements including local authority and as
such, the students residing in the vicinity are getting proper
educational facilities. He, therefore, strongly opposes the petition.
10. The rival contentions now fall for our consideration.
11. It has to be noted that the authorities had observed various
shortcomings and deficiencies in running of the school in the year
2005 and 2006. The respondents had conducted enquiry in the
working of the school and recommended derecognition of the school
from the academic year 2005-2006. In view of the readiness of the
petitioner/Management to remove the deficiencies and believing on the
undertaking submitted by it, the recognition was continued for the year
4735.09wp
2006-2007, subject to removal of all the shortcomings and
deficiencies. The respondents observed that, despite undertaking
given by the petitioner/Management, the shortcomings were not
removed and on the basis of inspection of the school and having
conducted a thorough enquiry, respondent No.4 again concluded that
the shortcomings and deficiencies were not removed.
12. The grievances raised by the teachers about non-payment
of regular salary and the litigation by the teachers against the
Management is a crucial issue about which the petitioner/Management
was repeatedly informed by the authorities. Despite repeated orders
passed by the authorities, the petitioner/Management failed to resolve
the grievances and the teachers were not paid regular salary. The
record reveals that the petitioner/Management was repeatedly
informed about the deficiencies and sufficient opportunities were
afforded to remove it.
13. The record reveals that in view of the breach of conditions
mentioned in Rule 3.2 of the Secondary School Code, by exercising
powers under Rule 7.1, recognition of the school was cancelled from
academic session 2005-2006 by order dated 29/04/2006. However, in
the appeal preferred by the petitioner/Management, the recognition
4735.09wp
was continued by the order dated 29/06/2006 for the year 2006-2007
on the condition of removal of all the deficiencies. Despite this, when
the shortcomings were not removed and the grievances of the teachers
were not redressed, by letter dated 03/03/2007, respondent No.4 made
recommendation to respondent No.2 about derecognition of the school
from academic session 2006-2007.
14. It has to be noted that, despite there being orders passed in
Writ Petition No.7440/2005, the salary of the employees was not
released by the petitioner/Management within two months as directed
by this Court, the employees had filed contempt petitions before this
Court.
15. Taking into consideration all these sequence of events and
considering the entire conduct of the petitioner/Management in
repeated breach of the Rule 3.2 of the Secondary School Code,
respondent No.3 has passed final order dated 13/04/2007
derecognising the school from academic session 2006-2007.
The deficiencies/shortcomings which formed basis of the
impugned decision are :-
4735.09wp
(1) There were no attempts of coordination between the
Management representative and the Head Master.
(2) Management has failed to pay the salary of teachers who
were on non-grant basis.
(3) The complaints related to the Head Master were not
resolved.
It has to be noted that these deficiencies were found not to
have been removed since years together and the
petitioner/Management has not taken any efforts to resolve these
deficiencies.
16. Perusal of the impugned order dated 13/04/2007 shows
that respondent No.3 has taken into consideration all the relevant
issues, which are reflected in the impugned order. The record reveals
that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner/Management
to remove the deficiencies and even sufficient opportunity of hearing
was extended to the petitioner/Management. The impugned order
passed by respondent No.3 under Rule 7.4 of the Secondary School
Code, therefore is just and proper.
4735.09wp
17. It is imperative to note that the grievance has been
espoused only by the Management and not by any of the members of
the teaching staff. It is rather noteworthy that the members of the
teaching faculty had earlier invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court
and had even initiated contempt proceedings against the
petitioner/Management, have subsequently submitted representations
stating that their grievances against the Management stood redressed.
The cumulative factual aspects indicates that although the
petitioner/Management has endeavoured to demonstrate, on record,
that the alleged deficiencies stood rectified, it is pertinent to note that
competent authorities have arrived at their conclusions independently
upon due appreciation of the material placed before them. The
petitioner/Management has failed to establish any perversity,
arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety in the impugned decision
warranting interference by this Court.
18. The factual position submitted by the learned A.G.P. vide
affidavit dated 23/02/2024 about existence of five other schools
including Zilla Parishad schools in the vicinity of the petitioner/school
also demonstrates that the need of providing educational facilities to
the students has been properly met. The school run by the
4735.09wp
petitioner/Management had committed breach of terms and conditions
of Rule 3.2 of the Secondary School Code.
19. The proposition of law laid down in the judgments relied
upon by the counsel for the petitioner can not be disputed. The
judgments laying down the proposition of law regarding arbitrary
exercise of powers and rules of interpretation of statute also cannot be
disputed. None of the judgments relied upon deal with the issue of
derecognition of the school which is the only issue involved in this
matter. It has to be noted that the decision of derecognition of the
petitioner's school is based on categorical findings of the authorities
about breach of terms and conditions as per Rule 3.2 of the Secondary
School Code. The proposition of law laid down in the judgments
relied upon, cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner.
20. The position of law is fairly settled that the scope of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
confined to scrutinizing the decision-making process rather than
adjudicating upon the decision itself. The legal position on this point
stands crystallized through a plethora of judicial pronouncements.
Reference may profitably be made to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Died) as per Legal
4735.09wp
Representatives and Others Vs. District Collector, Chittoor
District and others, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 500, wherein the
following pertinent observations were made :
"40. Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds of
perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take
the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these
grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, in
exercise of the extraordinary power of judicial review.
41. In this case, the impugned decision, taken pursuant to
orders of Court, was based on some materials. It cannot be said
to be perverse, to warrant interference in exercise of the High
Court's extraordinary power of judicial review. A decision is
vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is
in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could
possibly have taken the decision, having regard to the materials
on record. The decision in this case is not irrational."
21. In the conspectus of the present matter, the impugned
decision, having been arrived at upon due consideration of the material
on record by the competent authorities, cannot be characterized as
either perverse or manifestly arbitrary. The decision does not suffer
from irrationality, nor does it disclose any patent illegality. Thus, there
exists no justifiable ground for this Court to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, we are
4735.09wp
of the considered view that the present writ petition does not merit
interference.
22. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is
discharged. No order as to costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
