Dismissed

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Chairman/Secretary and Anr. v. Sanjay Prataprao Jadhav and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2024WP/10020/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ challenging a School Tribunal judgment that allowed an employee's appeal by setting aside an illegal termination. The termination was set aside because the inquiry committee violated mandatory rules by not including the registered President of the trust as a member.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the finding of the School Tribunal regarding the improper constitution of the inquiry committee was affirmed.

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

5-WP-10020-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10020 OF 2024

¶4

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Through Its Chairman/secretary And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Sanjay Prataprao Jadhav And Anr. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Milind Deshmukh, for the Petitioners. Ms. V. R. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent – State.

¶6

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 26^th JULY, 2024

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard Mr. Milind Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

The petition questions the judgment dated 18.03.2024, passed by the learned School Tribunal, Kolhapur, by which the appeal filed by the employee under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 has been allowed by setting aside the order of termination dated 07.12.2017 on the ground, that the constitution of the management committee, for inquiry against

¶10

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2024.07.29 10:23:42 +0530

1 of 3

Arun Sankpal

5-WP-10020-2024.doc

the employee, who was the Head Master did not comply with the requirement of Section 36(2)(b)(i) of the M.E.P.S. Rules as one of the constituent of the inquiry committee was not the President of the management, on account of the fact, that the name of the convener Mr. A.A.Patil, who was claimed to be the president of the management was not shown in the extract of the Public Trust Register form 2015 to 2017 (Exhibit-38). The learned counsel for

¶15

the petitioners submits that the petitioners, had formed a Committee of which the president was Mr.A.A.Patil, who was empowered to represent management in any inquiry against an employee, which was in the terms of bye-laws.

¶16

In my considered opinion, the language of Section 36(2)(b)

¶17

of the MPES Rules is clear and specific and mandates that one member of the inquiry committee would be the president of the management. That being the clear position, the Change Report No.1532/2017 placed on record at (Page-18) indicates, that on 09.05.2017, Mr.Sharadrao Govindrao Pawar was the President of the petitioner, which was the position even in the earlier Change Report for the earlier period ((Page-18). This Change Report has been accepted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner by his order

2 of 3

Arun Sankpal

5-WP-10020-2024.doc

dated 12.03.2019 (Page-23) which would indicate that it was necessary for the President of the petitioner trust, to have been a member of the inquiry committee in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 36(2)(b)(i) of the M.P.E.S. Rules. Since this is admittedly not the position the finding rendered by the learned School Tribunal that the inquiry committee has not been constituted properly cannot be interfered with as the same is in consonance with the requirement of Section 36(2)(b)(i) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. The petition therefore does not have any merits and is therefore dismissed. No costs.

¶22

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶23

3 of 3

¶24

Arun Sankpal

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Chairman/Secretary and Anr. v. Sanjay Prataprao Jadhav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Chairman/Secretary and Anr. v. Sanjay Prataprao Jadhav and Anr.

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

Ramrao Atmarao Bachhav and Ors. vs Education Officer, Secondary Zilla Parishad, Nashik and Ors.

M/S Crazy Boys Restaurant and Bar vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Vidya Hanumant Bhapkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashoka Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Throu. Authorised Peson Anand Santoshlal Gupta and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Principal Sec. Revenue Dept and Anr.

Baban Dharma Bhoir and Ors. vs Sitaram Janu Bhoir (Since Deceased Represented through His Heirs and Ors.

Vishnu Sakharam Bude vs Manohar Hari Laxman Bude