Bombay High Court
Sau. Snehal Sharad Jog And Others vs The President, Gramin Vikas Shikshan ... on 8 July, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, S.M. Modak
36-wp-7106-18(j).odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No. 7106 OF 2018
1. Sau. Snehal Sharad Jog
Aged 44 Years, Occ. Service
R/o Gandhi Ward, Desaiganj,
Tah. Desaiganj, Distt. Gadchiroli
2. Sau. Vandana Rajendra Udasi
Aged 54 Years, Occ. Service
R/o Gandhi Ward, Desairganj,
Tah. Desaiganj, Dist. Gadchiroli
3. Mukhaliram Mahadeo Borkar,
aged 53 Years, Occ. Service
R/o Gandhi Ward, Desaiganj,
Tah. Desaiganj, Dist. Gadchiroli
4. Haridas Vyhankat Pendam
Aged 36 Years, Occ. Service
R/o At Visora, Tah. Desaiganj,
Distt. Gadchiroli.
5. Kishor Maharu Kumre
Aged 45 year, Occ. : Service
R/o Hanuman Ward, Desaiganj,
Tah. Desaiganj, Distt. Gadchiroli
6. Nilind Vishwanath Meshram
Aged 45 Years, Occ.: Service
R/o Koregaon, Desaiganj,
Tah. Desaiganj, Distt. Gadchiroli.
7. Smt. Vanita Charandas Dumane
Aged 52 Years, Occ. Service
R/o Hanuman Ward, Desaiganj,
Tah. Desaiganj, Dist. Gadchiroli
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 03:09:28 :::
36-wp-7106-18(j).odt 2/6
8. Mangesh Maroti Bhaisare,
Aged 43 Years, Occ. Service
R/o Virshi Ward, Desaiganj,
Tah. Desaiganj, Dist. Gadchiroli
9. Smt. Antkala Mohandas Waghade
Aged 42 Years, Occ.: Service
R/o Gandhi Ward, Desaiganj,
Tah. Desaiganj, Distt. Gadchiroli : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. The President,
Gramin Vikas Shikshan Sanstha,
Churchura, Regn. No. PTR No. F-416
(GAD), Tah. Armori, Dist. Gadchiroli
2. The Education Officer (Madhyamic)
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
3. Dy. Director of Education,
Nagpur, Nagpur Division, Nagpur : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri Anil Dhawas, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for the Respondent no.1.
Shri A.M.Kadukar, AGP for the Respondent no.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 8th JULY, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Documents filed by the petitioner are taken on record and marked "X" collectively.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 03:09:28 ::: 36-wp-7106-18(j).odt 3/6
2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. By this petition, the petitioners who are teachers of School, now under the Management of respondent no.1 Trust, have taken an exception to the order passed by the Education Officer (Secondary)-respondent no.2, granting approval for the school "Pragtik Girls High School, Desaiganj, Dist. Gadchiroli", being managed by Gramin Vikas Shikshan Sanstha-respondent no.1.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, without following provisions contained in clauses 12.1 to 12.5 of the Secondary School Code, no such approval could have been granted by respondent no.2. He places reliance upon the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jeejau Shikshan Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2011(7) ALL MR 506 and also the Government Resolution dated 17th February, 2012 which is filed today along with other documents and collectively marked "X".
5. Shri Jibkhate, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that this is not the only instance of any change of management of the school but a necessary consequence arising ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 03:09:28 ::: 36-wp-7106-18(j).odt 4/6 from the amalgamation of earlier Trust with respondent no.1 Trust. He submits that a scheme permitting such amalgamation and the running of the Trust framed under Section 50(A) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act has also received its approval of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Therefore, he submits that the Secondary School Code has no application to the facts of the present case. He also submits that the petitioners who are the teachers of the school have no locus standi in such a case.
6. Upon consideration of the provisions of Section 50(A) of Trust Act and also Secondary School Code, we find that there is substance in the arguments for the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
7. In the present case, two Trusts have been amalgamated and scheme framed for their management under Section 50 (A) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act has also been sanctioned. So this is not a case wherein Management has been transferred from one institute to another institute. This is a case wherein one institute has ceased to exist after its merger with the other institute and the effect is that erstwhile Management has also ceased to exist and in fact the previous management has now assumed a new form under the auspices of the Trust with which it has been amalgamated and ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 03:09:28 ::: 36-wp-7106-18(j).odt 5/6 it is the respondent no.1 here. Clauses 12.1 to 12.5 of the Secondary School Code speak only about change of management of the school and whenever it is proposed, the approval of the Deputy Director Education, by following the procedure prescribed therein has to be obtained. But that is not the case here. No such approval was necessary.
8. Apart from what is stated above, if the petitioners had any grievance against the decision, the remedy for redressal of that grievance would lie under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trust Act and, therefore, the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted. There is one more aspect, which needs our consideration. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are getting their salary and that nothing has been done by the management to jeopardise their interests as teachers in the school. Such being the position, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the respondent no.1 to be adjudicated upon by filing a writ petition, like the present, and as such on that count also the petitioners have no locus standi in the present case before this Court.
9. Once it is disclosed by the facts, which is the case here, that the provisions of Secondary School Code are not applicable to the case and the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act are ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 03:09:28 ::: 36-wp-7106-18(j).odt 6/6 applicable, the judgments, the Government Resolution and other documents relied upon by the petitioners, would rather be of no assistance to them.
10. In this view of the matter, we find no substance in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed. The petition stands dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sknair
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 03:09:28 :::