Remanded

Shri. Manohar Yadu Deshmukh v. Carlton Pereira the President and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2017WP/13059/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court through Writ Petition set aside the School Tribunal's order dismissing an appeal on maintainability grounds. It restored the appeal, directed the Tribunal to reconsider whether the RCE Act and Rules apply, and to decide the issue of maintainability within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Appeal restored to Tribunal's file for reconsideration of applicability of RCE Act and Rules; Rule absolute.

Shri. Manohar Yadu Deshmukh Vs Carlton Pereira the… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2017)

8-W.P-13059-2016

Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 13059 OF 2016

¶7

Shri Manohar Yadu Deshmukh ] Petitioner Vs. Carlton Pereira, The President ] The Society of St. Peters School ] Pachgani, Tal. Mahabaleshwar, ] Dist. Satara & Ors. ] Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad, for petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Atul Damle, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr. Rajesh Kinnerkar and Mr. Rupesh R. Lanjekar, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. A.R. Metkari, for respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 1^st AUGUST, 2017. P.C .

¶11

Heard Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Damle, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. Metkari, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 at length.

¶12

On the motion made by Mr. Gaikwad, leave to delete respondent No.4-Education Officer [Primary], Zilla Parishad, Satara is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

¶13

By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment

¶14

8-W.P-13059-2016

¶15

¶16

and order dated 4^th July, 2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur [for short 'Tribunal'] in Appeal No. 26 of 2015. By that order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein on the ground that Saint Peters School, Panchgani is not a recognized School and consequently is not a private School as per Section 2 (20) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools [Conditions of Service] Regulation Act, 1977 [for short 'Act'].

¶17

Rule. Learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Having regard to the narrow controversy raised in this Petition as also at the request and by consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing and Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶18

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has considered provisions of the Act. However, it appears that no contention based on the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 [“for short “2009 Act”] as also the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 [for short “2011 Rules”] was advanced. Equally decision of this Court in the case of Latika Mane Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 (4) Mh. L. J, 244 was not cited before the Tribunal. This is more so, when it is not in dispute that Saint Peters School run 3^rd to 10^th standards.

¶19

In view thereof, it is necessary for the Tribunal to

¶20

3 8-W.P-13059-2016

¶21

consider whether provisions of 2009 Act as also 2011 Rules are applicable and if so, in view of Rule-20 of the 2011 Rules, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try appeal u/s 9 of the Act. The Tribunal will also consider whether decision of this Court in case of Latika Mane [supra] is applicable or not.

¶22

In view thereof, impugned order is set aside. Appeal No. 26 of 2015 is restored to the file of the Tribunal. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal will consider applicability or otherwise of 2009 Act and 2011 Rules. All the contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. The parties agree that they will appear before the Tribunal on 6^th September, 2017 and for that purpose, no fresh notice to be issued to them. The Tribunal is requested to decide issue of maintainability within two months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶23

[R.G. KETKAR, J.]

Shri. Manohar Yadu Deshmukh v. Carlton Pereira the President and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Manohar Yadu Deshmukh v. Carlton Pereira the President and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ranjana Krishnath Patil Vs the Divisional Controller Officer, Kolhapur

Modern Education Society and Other Vs Ms. Kausar Parveen Shakur Shaikh

Smt. Ranjana Krishnath Patil Vs the Divisional Controller Officer, Kolhapur

Shri. Manohar Yadu Deshmukh Vs Carlton Pereira the President and Ors.

Priti Mihir Thakker @ Priti Dhirajlal Ruparel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Manglu Borse Vs Deepika Sanjay Chavan and 9 Others