Dismissed

Yogeshwar Education Society, through President, Shri. Yashwant Bapu Kate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2015WP/9491/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Education Officer's order absorbing a teacher into a different school. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim for unpaid salary, holding that Rule 26 of the State Rules did not apply to employees of a derecognized school and that Rule 25A(2) governed their entitlement. The petition for salary from October 2010 was dismissed as misconceive

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; claim for salary rejected.

Yogeshwar Education Society, through President… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

907.WP9491_2013.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9491 OF 2013

¶5

Yogeshwar Education Society, through President Shri Yashwant Bapu Kate & Anr. … Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Smt. Sushma Bhende, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vivek Salunkhe, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Mr. S.G. Kudle, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & C.V. BHADANG, JJ. DATE : 8th January, 2015.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

By this Petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the Education

¶13

officer (Secondary) Pune dated 10^th July, 2013 absorbing the respondent no. 4 in Abbasaheb Atre Din Prashala, Pune. The petitioners also seek

¶14

the salary of the teaching and the non-teaching staff of petitioner no. 2/school.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are entitled to salary in view of the provisions of Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. It is stated that the employees of the petitioner no.2/school

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

907.WP9491_2013.doc

¶18

have not been paid salary since October, 2010. It is further stated that the services of the respondent no. 4 had been terminated by the petitioner-management and, therefore, the Education officer was not justified in absorbing the respondent no. 4 in Abbasaheb Atre Din Prashala, Pune.

¶19

It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the prayers made by the petitioners cannot be granted. The petitioners should not be aggrieved by the order of the Education officer absorbing the respondent no. 4 in Abbasaheb Atre Din Prashala, Pune. The management of Abbasaheb Atre Din Prashala, Pune has not approached this Court refusing permission to the respondent no. 4 to serve in the said school. In any case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also not seriously pressed this prayer.

¶20

The claim of the petitioners for the unpaid salary of the teaching and the non-teaching employees of the petitioner no. 2/school from October, 2010 is liable to be rejected. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the salary is payable by respondent/Education authorities under Rule 26 of the Rules, 1981 is misconceived. The provisions of Rule 26 would not apply to this case and the case would be governed by the provisions of Rule 25A(2) of the Rules. In the instant

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

907.WP9491_2013.doc

¶23

case, the petitioner no. 2/school was derecognized in the year 2004 and an Appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of derecognition was dismissed by the State Government in the year 2010. In case of derecognition of the school, the employees would be governed by the provisions of Rule 25A(2) of the Rules. Only the employees who are not directly responsible for the derecognition are entitled to be taken on the waiting list by the Education officer, so that their names could be recommended to the Management of the newly opened aided schools or existing aided schools. Since there is a derecognition of the petitioner no. 2/school, the employees of the petitioner no. 2 were surely not entitled to the salary from the Education Department. The provision of Rule 26 could not have been applied to the case in hand.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶25

(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶26

3 of 3

Yogeshwar Education Society, through President, Shri. Yashwant Bapu Kate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogeshwar Education Society, through President, Shri. Yashwant Bapu Kate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Sanjeev Yadav Vs the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane and Ors.

Asha Shripati Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Education and Sports and Ors.

Vaibhav Vithoba Marathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ms. Asha Narayan Landge Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and 8 Others

The Sayyadnagar, Mahmadwadi Parisar Jest Nagrik Sangh, Hadpsar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Jagdish Kaluram Vyas Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Land Development Dept and Ors.