Disposed

Shri Sant Tukaram Bahuudesshiya Shikshan Sanstha v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2012WP/3592/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioners' claim regarding rival election results as better suited for an alternate forum. It directed the Deputy Director of Education to investigate the school's management and issue necessary directions regarding teacher qualifications and appointments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Director of Education to investigate the school's management and issue directions regarding teacher qualifications within eight weeks.

Shri Sant Tukaram Bahuudesshiya Shikshan Sanstha Vs… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

WP3592-12NGRP

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.: 3592, 3593, 3594 AND
3595 OF 2012

¶6

Shri Sant Tukaram Bahuudesshiya Shikshan
Sanstha
Versus

¶7

The State of Mahararshtra and others

¶8

***

¶9

Mr. P. S. Shendurnikar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.
1, 2, 2-A, 3.

¶10

Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent
No.4.

¶11

Mr. S. S. Manale, Advocate for Respondent
No.6.

¶12

Mr. V. P. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. V. D.
Hon, Advocate for Respondent No.7.

¶13

***

¶14

CORAM:NARESH H. PATIL &
U. D. SALVI, JJ.
DATED: 23rd JULY, 2012.

¶15

PER COURT:

¶16

1. Heard.

¶17

2. The Petitioners claim to be members of

¶18

the management committee which got elected

¶19

according to the petitioner, to govern the

¶20

affairs of the education trust, in the year

¶21

2005 and in the election conducted in the

¶22

-:(2):-

¶23

WP3592-12NGRP

¶24

year 2011. Admittedly, the issue in

¶25

respect of change report was subjected to
litigation before the competent forum in
respect of alleged elections held in the
year 2005 and 2011. Number of orders

¶26

passed by the office of Charity
Commissioner and the order passed by this
Court are placed on record.

¶27

3.In substance, the contention of the

¶28

petitioner is that the Respondent No.5
teachers whose approval was cancelled by
the Education Officer ought not to have
been permitted to discharge their duties as
teachers in the respondent school. It is
the submission of the counsel that the
respondent teachers viz. Mr. S. S.
Suryawanshi, Sau. R. H. Salunke and Mr. S.
V. Kajale approached the Tribunal against
the order of termination of their services.
It is submitted that the Tribunal dismissed

¶29

their appeals. Writ petitions were

¶30

preferred by the teachers. Those petitions
are admitted, but interim relief is refused

¶31

WP3592-12NGRP

¶32

-:(3):-

¶33

by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
As the fourth teacher Smt. A. K. Sutar did
not approach the Tribunal, her termination
has taken effect and according to the
petitioner she is not discharging her
duties as a teacher in the school.

¶34

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that once approval was rejected,
the Education Officer was not competent to

¶35

grant approval again. Neither Respondent
teachers who claim to be discharging their
duties as teachers were entitled to work as
teachers on the purported resolution passed

¶36

by the management on 10th June, 2009
(Exhibit R-8). According to learned
counsel, the proceeding initiated by the
petitioners, in respect of filing of appeal
before the Joint Charity Commissioner,
Latur Region, Latur in Appeal No.12 of 2008
is still pending.

¶37

5.The counsel prayed for directions to
the Respondents restraining the teachers
from discharging their duties and for

¶38

WP3592-12NGRP

¶39

-:(4):-

¶40

issuing further directions to the concerned
authorities.

¶41

6.Learned counsel Mr. Sakolkar for the

¶42

respondent/ teachers disputed the statement
made by the petitioners in respect of
termination of services of the respondent/

¶43

teachers. The counsel submitted that

¶44

though the respondent/ teachers had

¶45

approached the Tribunal and proceedings are

¶46

still pending, the management, which was
in-charge at the relevant time, had

¶47

resolved on 10th June, 2009 to reinstate
the respondent/ teachers by condoning brake

¶48

in service and assured them payment of

¶49

arrears of salary. Learned counsel Mr.

¶50

Sakolkar placed reliance on the resolution

¶51

which is placed on record. It was further

¶52

submitted that the petitioners have raised

¶53

disputed questions of facts regarding

¶54

petitioners being in-charge of management

¶55

of the trust and the school administration.

¶56

Counsel submitted that the issues to be
adjudicated under the Bombay Public Trusts

¶57

-:(5):-

¶58

WP3592-12NGRP

¶59

Act are still pending before the concerned
authorities and unless those proceedings
are decided the petitioners shall not be
entitled to claim that they were and are
in-charge of the management. The counsel
further submits that the Respondent
teachers are discharging their duties, even
now.

¶60

7.Learned A.G.P. Shri Dighe has referred

¶61

to the order passed by the State Government
and placed reliance on affidavit filed on
behalf of Respondent No.3. In paragraphs
8, 9 and 10 the deponent contends:

¶62

"8.I say and submit that,

¶63

again the then Education Officer
(Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Latur

¶64

Shri Joshi has issued another
orderdated11.6.2012and

¶65

cancelled the earlier order dated
21.4.2012 and restored the earlier
order dated 29.12.2011 by which
approval is granted.

¶66

9.I say and submit that, it

¶67

-:(6):-

¶68

WP3592-12NGRP

¶69

is also necessary to point out

¶70

that there is a dispute in the
management and therefore, the
Respondent authorities have taken
the necessary steps and the
proposal is submitted to the
Director of Education, Maharashtra
State,Puneforappointing

¶71

administrator. I say that, the
letter dated 17.2.2010 issued by
the Government is also challenged
by the Petitioner by filing Writ

¶72

Petition No. 1846/2010 and the

¶73

same is pending in this Hon'ble
High Court. I say that, this

¶74

Hon'ble High Court has granted

¶75

Rule in the said Writ Petition and

¶76

also issued interim direction.

¶77

Hereto annexed and marked as
Exhibit-R-4 is the copy of order
dated 12.9.2010 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court in Writ
Petition No.1846/2010.

¶78

-:(7):-

¶79

WP3592-12NGRP

¶80

10.I say and submit that,

¶81

this Hon'ble High Court has passed
interim order on 22.6.2012 and
directedtheRespondent

¶82

authorities not to release the

¶83

salary of Respondent employees. I

¶84

saythat,accordingly,the
deponent has taken the necessary
steps and withheld the salaries of
the employees."

¶85

8.We have heard the submissions of
learned counsel Shri Salunke, counsel
appearing for Respondent No.4 and counsel
holding for Mr. Hon for Respondent No.7.
9.After considering the record placed
before this Court and the submissions
advanced, we are prima facie of the view
that the issues relating to the change
reports, elections held to constitute
managing committee in the year 2005 and
2011 need not be addressed by this Court in

¶86

its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.
Competent alternate forum is available for

¶87

-:(8):-

¶88

WP3592-12NGRP

¶89

settling these issues and the parties have
already approached those forums for
redressal of their grievances.

¶90

10.The school runs 5th to 10th standard
classes. It is informed that the school is
being run from the year 1995. The school

¶91

is being run on grant-in-aid basis,
according to the petitioner.

¶92

11.In the facts of the case, we are of
the view that the Deputy Director of
Education shall take effective steps to
make investigations as to whether the
educationalinstitutionismanaged
properly,maintainingeducational
discipline, protects interest of students,
maintains the educational standards. The

¶93

Deputy Director, after considering the
report, if is of the opinion that it is
necessary to appoint an Administrator or
Administrative Committee to govern the
affairs of the school, then we direct the
Deputy Director to do so in the interest of
the students and staff.

¶94

-:(9):-

¶95

WP3592-12NGRP

¶96

12.We clarify that we have not addressed

¶97

any issue in respect of claim of rival
claimants as to who was/ is in-charge of
the management, as elected body. These
issues are left open to be decided by the
competent forum.

¶98

13.In respect of functioning of the
Respondent teachers, we direct the Deputy
Director of Education to consider the
record and issue necessary directions to
theEducationOfficerregarding
qualification of Respondent teachers, grant
of approval or cancellation of approval of
such teachers. Petitions are disposed of.

¶99

14.The Deputy Director of Education shall
pass appropriate orders within eight weeks
from today.

¶100

15.Authentic copy of this order be issued
to learned to A.G.P.

¶101

[U. D. SALVI, J.]
Dt.23/07/2012
ans/WP3592-12NGRP

¶102

[NARESH H.PATIL J.]

Shri Sant Tukaram Bahuudesshiya Shikshan Sanstha v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sant Tukaram Bahuudesshiya Shikshan Sanstha v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijilal Damu Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shreeram Sakharam Khandre Vs the Secretary Vijay Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Aurangabad and Ors.

Baburao Madhavrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Pundlik Baviskar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dilip Shriram Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nupur Avinash Thakur Thr. Uncle Ravindra Shivdas Thakur Vs St Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nashik and Ors.