1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1987/1994
1. Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan,
through its Registrar, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2. Bhavanis Bhagwandas Purohit Vidya
Mandir, through its Principal, Lala Lajpattrai
Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Nagpur.
2. Sanjay Sukhdeo Bombatkar,
Assistant Teacher (Terminated)
r/o Quarter No. 3/86, Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur.
3. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Bombay. ....RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. V. Purohit, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr. T. R. Kankale, A.G.P. for respondent no.3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- S. A. BOBDE & A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
DATE :-
JULY 22 , 2010
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:11:44 :::
2
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per:- S. A. Bobde, J.)
1. The petitioners have questioned applicability of
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act,
1977 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and, therefore, the
tenability of the appeal filed against them by a teacher, whose
services are terminated. The petitioner is a School affiliated to the
Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and runs three schools
in Nagpur. The petitioner-Management terminated the services of
respondent no.2, who, thereafter, has approached the School Tribunal
under Section 9 of the Act. The Tribunal took cognizance of the
appeal and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner approached
this Court questioning the applicability of the Act and tenability of the
appeal. There is no dispute that the petitioner no.2 is a School, which
is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. It is,
thus, not a School recognized by the Director, Divisional Board or any
such Board or by any Officer recognized by State Government or by
the Boards, which alone qualifies for being treated as a private school
governed by the provision of this Act.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:11:44 :::
3
2. To decide the controversy in question, it is necessary to
look into the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 (1) of the Act,
which defines the application of this Act reads as follows:-
“3. Application of Act: (1) The provisions of this Act
shall apply to all private schools in the State ofMaharashtra, whether receiving any grant-in-aid from
the State Government or not.”
This Section makes the Act applicable to all private
schools. Obviously, the term “private schools” also needs to be gone
into, which is defined by Section 2 (20) of the Act is as under:-
“2(20) “private school” means a recognised school
established or administered by a Management, other
than the Government or a local authority.”
The term “recognised”, is defined in Section 2(21) of
the Act, which reads thus:-
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:11:44 :::
4
“2(21) “recognised” means recognised by the
Director, the Divisional Board or the State Board, or
by any officer authorised by him or by any of suchBoards”
The terms “Director”, “Divisional Board” and “State
Board” are defined by Section 2(6), (6A) and 2(25) respectively.
They are reproduced below:-
“2(6) “Director” means the Director of Education or
the Director of Technical Education [or the Director of
Vocational Education and Training] [or the Directorof Art] as the case may be, appointed as such by the
State Government;”
“2(6A) “Divisional Board” means the Divisional
Board established under the Maharashtra Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education Baords Act, 1965″
“2(25) “State Board” means-
(a) the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education established under::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:11:44 :::
5the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education Boards Act, 1965;
(b) the Board of Technical Examinations,
Maharashtra State;
(c) the Maharashtra State Board of Vocational
Examinations; or
(d) the Art Examinations Committee”
3. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions leaves no
manner of doubt that the Act applies only to private schools and
private schools are Schools, which are recognized by the Director of
Education appointed by the Government of Maharashtra or Divisional
Boards established under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965.
4. This being the case, the petitioners-schools which are
recognized by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi are
schools to which the Act has no application. In such circumstance, the
writ petition succeeds. Appeal No. STN/NGP/147 of 1992 instituted
by respondent no.2 before Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:11:44 :::
6
challenging the notice of termination dated 04.06.1992 and
18.06.1992 and 18.06.1992 is hereby dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Respondent no.2 may resort to such remedy as may be
advised in law.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:11:44 :::