Disposed

Mr. Prakash Ramchandra Parab v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jun 2016PIL/113/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Head Master, filed a PIL challenging the State Government's order imposing responsibility on staff for non-implementation of the Midday Meal Scheme and seeking quashing of a suspension order. The Court held that PILs are not maintainable in service matters, directing the aggrieved individual to file a private suit.

What did the court decide?

The PIL was disposed of as not maintainable in service matters; the petitioner's right to approach the Court individually via a private suit was reserved.

Mr. Prakash Ramchandra Parab Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PILL. 4902-16

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (St.) No. 4902 OF 2016

¶5

Mr. Pramash Ramchandra Parab … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra, & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. Uday Warunjikar a/w Siddhesh L. Pilankar, for the Petitioner. Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

¶8

¶9

PC.

¶10

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the

¶11

Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

¶12

(a) Be pleased to direct the Respondent herein to place on record the entire scheme about the Midday meal scheme, more particularly with reference to the responsibility of the teaching and non-teaching staff and after going through the same considering the legality, validity and propriety thereof, be pleased to relieve the teaching and non-teaching staff.

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

PILL. 4902-16

¶15

(b) In the facts and circumstances of the example cited by the petitioner, be pleased to pass an appropriate order with reference to the enquiry initiated against the respondent no. 7 by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the suspension order dt. 11/02/2016 and the same be quashed and set aside.

¶16

(c) During pendency of this petition, be pleased to relieve the head-mater in the State of Maharashtra from the responsibility of implementing mid day meal scheme introduced by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 ad be pleased to stay the suspension Order passed against respondent No. 7 dated 11/02/2016.

¶17

(d) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c).

¶18

(e) Any other suitable and equitable relief may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners, in the interest of justice and facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶19

This petition is filed as a PIL by the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the responsibility placed by the State Government on the teaching and non-teaching staff for non implementation of the mid day meal scheme is arbitrary.

¶20

In our have, the State Government appears to have placed responsibility on the staff for non implementation of the mid day meal

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

PILL. 4902-16

¶23

scheme. According to us, head-master and staff of the school are competent to approach this Court, in the event they are aggrieved by any order passed by the Staff Government. In the present petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order of suspension passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against Respondent No. 7. It is always open for Respondent No. 7 to independently challenge the said order, if he is aggrieved by the said order. In our view, this petition cannot be treated as PIL. Moreover, the Apex Court has held in umpteen number of cases that the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not entertain PIL in service matters. Therefore, PIL is disposed of, reserving the right of a person, who is aggrieved by virtue of an order of placing responsibility on him for non implementation of the said policy /

¶24

scheme of the State Government.

¶25

Vinayak Halemath

¶26

3 / 3

Mr. Prakash Ramchandra Parab v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Prakash Ramchandra Parab v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, School Edu. and Sports Dept. 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

Case details

Similar cases

Balaprashad Ramnarayan Toshniwal Founder President Janjagruti Vidhi Seva Manch Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vickram Crishna Vs State of Maharashtra

Arul Mozhi Selvan Vs Reserve Bank of India

V.M. Shenoy Vs the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and Ors.

Suaukatali M. Betgeri Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Dhanaji Ganpati Vaidha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhanaji Ganpati Vaidha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rahul S/O Haridas Sahare Vs State of Mah., through Its Secretary, Dept. of Employment Guarantee Scheme 13 Others

Siddharth Shankar Roy Vs the Commissioner of Customs C.S.I.Airport Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Madhav v. Chhatre Vs Union of India Deptt.,of Telecommunications Service and 2 Ors.

Nina Bagai Hajela Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Benjamin Macwan Vs Union of India and3 Ors.

Ahmed Afroz Vs Ministry of Railways/ Chairman, Railway Board and Ors.

Bhavika a. Solanki Vs State of Maharashtra