JUDGMENT
1. These 4 petitions raise a common question. The 4 matters giving rise to these petitions have also been disposed of by the learned Presiding Officer, Schools Tribunal, Bombay Region, Bombay by a common judgment. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things to dispose of these 4 petitions by this common judgment.
2. It is not necessary to go into details of the facts of the cases for the point that is involved and which we propose to decide being short point on which elaboration of facts is not necessary.
3. Suffice it to say that the petitioners in these 4 petitions were in the employment of Respondent No. 1 which is managed by Respondent No. 2. Their services came to be terminated. Two of them challenged that termination initially by way of writ petitions which were rejected in limine. Against that rejection, they preferred appeals before the Division Bench of this Court, and pending the appeals, they approached the school tribunal with appeals under Section 9(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Thereafter, the Division Bench while disposing of the petitioner’s appeals directed the School Tribunal to dispose of the petitioner’s appeals filed under section 9(1) of the aforesaid Act. The other two petitioners directly approached the Tribunal in appeal. The School Tribunal, Bombay, ultimately dismissed the appeals. Hence the present writ petitions.
4. Before the School Tribunal, it was pointed out that Respondent No. 1 is a Polytechnic Institution, and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2719 of 1984 Shri P. D. Prabhudesai v. The Principal, M. T. E. Societies Walchand College of Engineering, Vishrambaug at Sangli and two others’ the Polytechnics are not governed by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The School Tribunal feeling bound by the judgment in the aforesaid writ petition held that, as the provisions of the aforesaid Act are not applicable, he had no jurisdiction to decide the appeals. Hence he dismissed those appeals.
5. True, in Writ Petition No. 2719 of 1984, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the polytechnics are not governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (for short “the aforesaid Act”). The judgment in the aforesaid writ petition weighed with the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Bombay, and that is why, he found that he has no jurisdiction to decide the appeals, and ultimately, he dismissed the appeals.
6. We have carefully gone through the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2719 of 1984. Mr. Bukhari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, that judgment proceeds upon either a mis-statement of fact or mis-conception of fact, and therefore, the holding therein does not hold good. Mr. Bukhari drew our attention to the following sentence appearing in that judgment.
“Admittedly polytechnics are not recognised by the Director of Education or the officer authorised by him, nor by the State Board.”
According to Mr. Bukhari, the correct position of facts is other way round. We will presently point out that Mr. Bukhari is very much right in his submission. Section 2(20) of the aforesaid Act defines the expression “Private School” as meaning a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Section 2(21) of the aforesaid Act defines the expression the word “recognised” as meaning recognised by the Director or by any officer authorised by him or by the State Board. Section 2(24) defines the word “School” as meaning a primary school, secondary school, higher secondary school or any part of a school, a junior college of education or any other institution or part thereof which imparts education or training below the degree level including any institution which imparts technical or vocational education.
7. In the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, the Court observed as follows :
“Though the expression “School” is widely worded, it is doubtful whether the diploma course of a polytechnic could be described as a “school” imparting education or training below the degree level.”
With these observations, the Division Bench of this Court ultimately reached the conclusion that the polytechnic which is run as per the recommendations of the AICTE is not a private school within the contemplation of Section 3 read with Section 2(20) of the Act.
8. Now before us, it is undisputed that the statement found in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court i.e., ‘Admittedly, Polytechnics are not recognised by the Director of Education or the Officer authorised by him, nor by the State Board’ is incorrect. Mrs. Gokhale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader very fairly stated before us that this statement is factually incorrect. She represents the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, and she states upon instructions that, as a matter of fact, the polytechnics are the institution which are recognised by Respondent No. 4.
9. Even apart from the concession made by Mrs. Gokhale, Mr. Bukhari has drawn our attention to certain other material to point out that the polytechnics, more particularly, respondent No. 1 is an institution recognised by Respondent No. 4. Therefore, it is clear to us that the judgment in the case of P. D. Prabhudesai v. The Principal M. T. E. in Writ Petition No. 2719 of 1984 proceeded upon some mis-conception of fact when it proceeded to say that “admittedly, polytechnics are not recognised by the Director of Education or the officer authorised by him, nor by the State Board”. The whole basis of the judgment proceeds from this position which was taken to be an admitted position. Now before us, the correct position has been brought into light. It is now undisputed. Even other materials brought to our notice by Mr. Bukhari also show that the polytechnics are recognised by Respondent No. 4. Therefore, they are clearly covered within the expression of “recognised” schools and private schools, and therefore they are within the ambit of operation of the aforesaid Act. The judgment in P. D. Prabhudesai v. The Principal M. T. E. Societies Walchand College of Engineering is of course a Division Bench judgment of this Court but as now it is conceded that it proceeds upon some mis-conception of fact, we do not think that the holding in that judgment that the polytechnics are not private schools under aforesaid Act, can be said to be the ratio which would have bound the Schools Tribunal to take the view which it has taken.
10. The School Tribunal’s view that it has no jurisdiction is based only upon the judgment of the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 2719 of 1984 in P. D. Prabhudesai’s case. That judgment, in our opinion, cannot be said to be laying down the correct proposition of law that the polytechnics are not governed by the aforesaid Act for it has proceeded upon the misconception of fact, as indicated hereinabove.
11. Having found it has no jurisdiction, the Tribunal has rightly not dwelt at length on the other points raised before us. Therefore, in our opinion, the matters shall have to be remanded to the Tribunal to take a fresh decision on the footing that the polytechnics are governed by the aforesaid Act. In the result rule in all these 4 writ petitions is made absolute. The polytechnic Respondent No. 1 is held to be governed under the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the appeals are remanded to the School Tribunal to decide them afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove after giving the parties proper opportunities of being heard. The matters are very old. It is hoped that the School Tribunal would give as high a priority to the disposal of these 4 matters as is possible to be given, regard of course being had to the exigencies of the other matters before it and the school tribunal shall try to give the decision within 6 months from the date of the receipt of the writ. There shall be no order as to costs.