Bombay High Court
Uttamrao Ramraoji Deshmukh And 2 Ors vs Education Officer (Second) Zilla ... on 4 November, 2023
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
2023:BHC-NAG:16488-DB
WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt
1/17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5010 OF 2007
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 4857 OF 2007
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 5011 OF 2007
...........
WRIT PETITION NO. 5010 OF 2007
1. Pramod s/o Dhanrajji Thakre,
Aged about 48 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o. At Post-Belora, Tq. Chandur-Bazar, District Amravati.
2. Waman s/o Bhauraoji Lohe,
Aged about 58 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o. Rithapur, Tq. Morshi, District Amravati.
3. Govind s/o Ganaji Kurwale,
Aged about 50 years, Occu-Nil.
R/o. At Post Belora, Tq. Chandur-Bazar,
District Amravati.
Amendment 4. Ashok s/o Narayanrao Dhomne,
carried out as per
Court's order dated Through his Legal heir
19.01.2022 Rajini wd/o Ashok Dhomne,
Sd/-
Adv.A.I.Sheikh Aged about 57 years, Occu-Nil.
C.F.Petitioners. R/o. At Post -Rithapur, Tq. Morshi, District Amravati.
..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. Education Officer (Sec.)
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt
2/17
Amendment 4. Education Society, Belora,
carried out as per Tq. Chandur-Bazar, Distt. Amravati.
Registrar order
dated 21.12.2022 Through its President-Shri Pravin Murlidhar Deshmukh,
Sd/-
Adv.A.I.Sheikh. Near Dr.Shekhar Hospital, Camp, Amravati.
C.F.Petitioners Tq. and District Amravati-444601 ....... RESPONDENTS
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 4857 OF 2007
1. Uttam rao s/o Ramraoji Deshmukh,
Aged about 59 years, Occu-Nil,
At post-Belora, District Amravati.
2. Sk.Hamid s/o Sk. Majid,
Aged about 60 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o. Rithapur, Tq. Morshi, District Amravati.
3. Tryambak s/o Kashirao Kathilkar,
Aged about 58 years, Occu-Nil.
R/o. At Post Belora, Tq. Chandur-Bazar,
District Amravati. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. Education Officer (Sec.)
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
4. Education Society, Belora,
Amendment Tahsil Chandur-Bazar, Distt. Amravati.
carried out as per
Registrar's Order Through its President-Shri Pravin Murlidhar Deshmukh,
dated 07.12.2022
Adv.A.I.Sheikh
Near Dr.Shekhar Hospital, Camp, Amravati.
C.F.Petitioners Tq. and District Amravati-444601 ....... RESPONDENTS
with
WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt
3/17
WRIT PETITION NO. 5011 OF 2007
1. Narayan s/o Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 63 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o. Vrindawan Colony, Camp,
Vidyapeeth Road, Amravati.
Amendment 2. Ramrao s/o Kishanrao Mankar,
carried out as per
Court's Order Through his legal heir
dated 18.01.2022
Adv.A.I.Sheikh
Chitra Rekha Ramraoji Mankar,
C.F.Petitioners Aged about 71 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o. At Post Riddhapur, Tq. Morshi, District Amravati.
3. Ramdas Madhavrao Dive,
Aged about 62 years, Occu-Nil.
R/o. Bramhanwada, Tq. Morshi,
District Amravati.
4. Sanjay s/o Shaligramji Watane,
Aged about 46 years, Occu-Nil.
R/o. Rajura Tq. Chandur-Bazar, District Amravati.
..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. Education Officer (Sec.)
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
4. Education Society, Belora,
Amendment
carried out as per
Tq. Chandur-Bazar, Distt. Amravati.
Registrar's order Through its President-Shri Pravin Murlidhar Deshmukh,
dated 21.12.2022
Sd/- Near Dr.Shekhar Hospital, Camp, Amravati.
Adv.A.I.Sheikh.
C.F.Petitioners
Tq. and District Amravati-444601 ....... RESPONDENTS
WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt
4/17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.I.Sheikh, Advocate for petitioners in all writ petitions.
Shri Amit Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to
3 in all writ petitions.
Shri R.S.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent no.4 in all writ petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
THE ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 25.09.2023
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON : 04.11.2023
JUDGMENT (Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Since similar challenge has been raised in these writ petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5010 of 2007 are members of the non-teaching staff of the Secondary School that was being conducted by the fourth respondent-Education Society, Belora, a public Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.4857 of 2007 and 5011 of 2007 were members of the teaching staff of the said School run by the public Trust. It is the case of the petitioners that despite discharging satisfactory services, the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati on 18.05.1996 was pleased to de-recognise the school in question. In the said order it was stated that since the results of the school were not satisfactory and it was noticed that various facilities in the said school were not being provided in a satisfactory manner, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 7.4 of the Secondary School Code the recognition of the school was being withdrawn from the Academic Session 1995-96. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 5/17 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1372 of 1996 (N.T.Deshmukh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others). By the judgment dated 02.02.2006 this Court held that prior to holding the employees of the school responsible for the passing of the order of de- recognition, it was necessary for the Education Officer(Secondary) to have given an opportunity of hearing to them. Since the order of de-recognition was passed in breach of principles of natural justice, the said order dated 18.05.1996 was set aside. The Education Officer (Secondary) was directed to take a fresh decision in the matter after giving due opportunity to the petitioners. It was further directed that if it was found that the employees were not responsible for de-recognition of the school, their respective cases for grant of pensionary benefits be examined.
3. Pursuant to the order of remand, the Education Officer (Secondary) re- considered the matter. The petitioners remained present in the Office of the Education Officer (Secondary) on 20.02.2006. After hearing the petitioners and thereafter inspecting the record, the Education Officer (Secondary) concluded that the petitioners were responsible for the deterioration in the standard of the school as well as the unsatisfactory results of the students. On that premise, it was held that all the thirteen teaching as well as non-teaching employees were responsible for de-recognition of the school. By the order dated 17.05.2006 such conclusion was recorded. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petitions challenging the order dated 17.05.2006 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary).
WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 6/17
4. Shri A. I. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Society was running two schools, one at Belora and another at Rithapur. All the petitioners had been discharging their duties in a satisfactory manner and it was the Management itself which was not desirous of continuing the school at Belora. This was evident from the conduct of the Management inasmuch as the initial notice dated 18.05.1996 issued to the Education Society had not been replied. For this reason, the petitioners as employees could not place before the authorities the relevant material indicating the activities at the school. Referring to the provisions of Section 25A(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the Rules of 1981), it was submitted that where closure of a school due to de-recognition is proposed, an advance intimation of three months has to be given by the Management to the permanent employees after receiving a show cause notice from the Deputy Director. No such intimation was given by the Management to the petitioners who were permanent employees. The petitioners therefore were not in a position to contest the order of de-recognition in the absence of any interest being shown by the Management. The names of the petitioners ought to have been taken in the waiting list by the Deputy Director of Education in terms of Section 25A(2) of the Rules of 1981 since it was only the Management that was responsible for closure of the school. Referring to the various reasons indicated in the order dated 17.05.2006, it was submitted that most of the shortcomings mentioned therein were attributable to the Management. As the Management did not discharge its responsibilities, the standard of the school decreased. The principal reason noted was that there was a dispute between the WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 7/17 Management and the staff, absence of sufficient infrastructure at the school, absence of audit for last three years, absence of necessary facilities for girl students. Further the explanation furnished by the Management had not been appropriately considered. Since all the petitioners were permanent employees having served for various periods exceeding ten years, they could not be prejudiced in view of the conduct of the Management. It was thus submitted that in terms of Rule 25A(2) of the Rules, 1981 the names of the petitioners were liable to have been taken on the waiting list. However, with passage of time all the petitioners had superannuated while one of the petitioners had also expired. Hence, the petitioners were entitled to the relief of arrears of salary and grant of pensionary benefits. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and others [(1979) 2 SCC 80], Chandrakant Shikshan Sanstha vs. Rajendra s/o Ramaji Belekar and others [2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 391], Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (B.Ed) and others [(2013) 10 SCC 324] and Gowramma C.(Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Manager(Personnel), Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and another [(2022) 11 SCC 794]. It was thus prayed that the petitioners be held entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
5. Shri Amit Madiwale, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 opposed the prayers made in the writ petitions. Referring to the affidavit-in-reply placed on record it was submitted that the Education Officer (Secondary) had considered all relevant material and after WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 8/17 finding the petitioners responsible for de-recognition rightly did not grant any relief to them. Due opportunity was given to the petitioners in terms of the directions issued in the earlier proceedings. Since all relevant material had been considered and the petitioners had been heard in the matter, there was no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. The material on record was sufficient to sustain the impugned order. As the petitioners themselves were responsible for the closure of the school on account of its de-recognition, no relief could be granted to them.
Shri R.S.Suryawanshi, learned counsel appearing for the Management- respondent no.4 submitted that as per the order passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), there was a dispute between the members of the staff and the Management. It was true that the notice dated 18.05.1996 had not been replied by the Management. Referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed, it was submitted that as the present Management of the public Trust having taken charge in the year 2017, it was not responsible for the activities that had occurred prior to 1996. It was also stated that the present Management was not aware of the status of the petitioners as permanent employees.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the material on record. At the outset, we may note that each petitioner was a permanent employee of the school run by the public Trust. The details as regards the service rendered by each petitioner till 18.05.1996 when the order of de- recognition was passed are as under:
WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 9/17 WRIT PETITION NO.5010 OF 2007 Sr.No. Name of Petitioner Designation Date of Service rendered Appointment till 18.05.1996 (approximate)
1. Pramod Dhanrajji Thakre Lab.Attendant 01.07.1985 11 years.
2. Waman Bhauraoji Lohe. Junior Clerk 16.07.1973 22 years.
3. Govind Ganaji Kurwale Peon. 01.01.1982 14 years.
4. Ashok Narayanrao Dhomne Watchman. 01.07.1979 16 years.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4857 OF 2007 Sr.No. Name of Petitioner Designation Date of Service rendered Appointment till 18.05.1996 (approximate)
1. Uttamrao Ramraoji Deshmukh Physical 01.07.1972 23 years.
Training Instructor
2. Sk.Hamid Sk.Majid. Assistant 10.12.1963 32 years.
Teacher
3. Tryambak Kashirao Kathilkar Assistant 01.08.1983 12 years Teacher WRIT PETITION NO.5011 OF 2007 Sr.No. Name of Petitioner Designation Date of Service rendered Appointment till 18.05.1996 (approximate)
1. Narayan Tryambakrao Assistant 20.01.1966 29 years.
Deshmukh Teacher
2. Ramrao Kishanrao Mankar Assistant 21.06.1973 22 years.
Teacher
3. Ramdas Madhavrao Dive Assistant 01.01.1975 12 years.
Teacher
4. Sanjay Shaligramji Watane Assistant 04.05.1986 10 years.
Teacher
WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt
10/17
7. The material on record indicates that on 18.05.1996 the Office of the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati was pleased to issue a notice to the Management of the school referring to various deficiencies in the running of the High School at Belora. The deficiencies noted included the aspects that the school building was not owned by the public Trust. The school was being run in the building that was quite old which was caused inconvenience during the rainy season, lack of sufficient furniture for the students, absence of a laboratory and requisite equipment therein, lack of sports equipment, absence of separate arrangements for girl students, absence of various basic facilities in the school and absence of audit being undertaken for the last three years. All this was stated to have resulted in the performance of the school being unsatisfactory. The Management was called upon to furnish its explanation in this regard. It is an admitted fact that the Management did not respond to this notice. An inference can be drawn that the Management was not desirous of contesting the notice issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati. As a result, the Deputy Director of Education passed the order of de-recognition on 18.05.1996 that was effective from the academic session 1995-96. This Court in N.T.Deshmukh and others (supra) set aside the said order on the ground that the same was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. It is seen that the Management did not appear in the said proceedings and in paragraph 17 of the said judgment it has been observed that the Court did not get any assistance from the Management as regards the state of affairs in the school as well as the status of the petitioners as employees. For this reason, the order dated 18.05.1996 was set aside and the Education Officer WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 11/17 (Secondary) was directed to give a fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties.
After remand the Education Officer (Secondary) heard the petitioners in the matter. The Management again did not contest the proposed action. A stand was taken by the petitioners that the employees were not responsible for the falling standard of the school and it was due to lack of interest being shown by the Management that it was faced with such situation. The Education Officer (Secondary) recorded a finding that all the thirteen employees of the school were responsible for the order of de-recognition.
8. Under Rule 25A(1) of the Rules of 1981 when closure of school on account of de-recognition is proposed, the Management is required to give advance intimation of three months to the permanent employees after the Management receives a show cause notice from the Deputy Director. Undisputedly, such advance intimation of three months as required by Rule 25A(1) was not given to the petitioners. Under Rule 25A(2) if the services of the employees in aided schools are terminated in accordance with sub-rule (1) due to de-recognition and such employees are not directly responsible for such de-recognition, their names are required to be taken on a waiting list to be prepared by the Deputy Director of Education. This is with a view to enable the names of such employees to be recommended to the Managements of newly opened aided schools or existing aided schools that are allowed to open additional divisions or classes for consideration. It is pertinent to note that in Rule 25A(2) of the Rules of 1981 a phraseology used is "the names of employees in aided schools whose services stand terminated in accordance with sub-rule(1) on account of de-recognition and who are not directly WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 12/17 responsible for such de-recognition,". It is clear from the aforesaid provision that if an employee whose services are terminated on account of de-recognition and such employee is "not directly responsible for such de-recognition" his name can be taken on the waiting list. It can thus be said that the intention behind the said provision is only to deprive an employee who is directly responsible for the de- recognition of the school from his name not being taken on the waiting list. It is therefore clear that the object behind the said provision is to deprive only such an employee who is directly responsible for de-recognition of the school from benefit of absorption of his services.
9. Perusal of the impugned order dated 17.05.2006 indicates the various reasons that have been enumerated as a cause for falling standards of education at the school leading to its de-recognition. These aspects are, absence of school building owned by the public Trust, existing building being in a dilapidated condition with minimal facilities rendering it also unfit for use during the rainy season, lack of adequate furniture for students, lack of an independent laboratory and equipment therein, lack of sports equipment, failure to undertake audit in last three years, lack of facilities for girl students, etc. In the joint reply submitted by the petitioners on 20.02.2006 it has been stated by them that besides aforesaid, since another school was started in the village there was reduction in the number of students at the school. The members of the staff had raised contributions and had constructed classrooms but the said place was sold by the Management in the year 1990, the furniture in the school at Bellora was sent by the Management to the other school run by it as a result of which there was insufficient furniture, the staff WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 13/17 members had made temporary arrangements for girl students. Though the cash book and passbook were duly maintained, the Management failed to conduct the audit. Documents with regard to sale of a portion of the school were placed on record.
The Education Officer (Secondary) has noted in the impugned order that the Management was responsible for failure to have a proper building for the school, lack of furniture, sports equipment, laboratory and requisite equipment therein as well as wash room facilities. After recording a finding that the Management was directly responsible for failure to provide all these basic facilities, it has been further held that the staff was responsible for reduction in the strength of students due to which the standard of the school had fallen. On this premise, it was held that the petitioners were responsible for de-recognition of the school.
10. We find that the Education Officer (Secondary) has misdirected himself in coming to the conclusion that the members of the staff were "directly responsible" for closure of the school under Rule 25A(1) of the Rules of 1981. The relevant material on record that finds place in the initial order dated 18.05.1996 as well as the impugned order dated 17.05.2006 clearly indicates that basic minimum facilities that are required to be provided at the school in the form of a proper school building with necessary furniture, an equipped laboratory, sufficient sports equipment, adequate facilities for girl students, etc. were missing. The Management also failed to undertake audit of its accounts though it was running two schools. The members of the staff cannot be held responsible for absence of these basic facilities since it is the responsibility of the Management to provide for the same. WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 14/17 The Education Officer (Secondary) has noted that there were documents placed on record indicating sale of portion of the school by the Management even though the staff had taken steps to provide for certain facilities through their own contributions. It goes without saying that due to lack of these basic facilities, the standard of the school and the education provided therein was bound to be affected. If the existing building of the school is found to be dilapidated and not worth occupying during the rainy season, it cannot be expected that parents would send their children to such school. It is but natural that the students would be admitted to some other school providing better facilities. It is the specific stand of the petitioners on record that the furniture at the school at Belora was shifted to the other school run by the public Trust. All this material has been noted by the Education Officer (Secondary) and he has also held that the Management was responsible for not providing these basic facilities. Having held so, there was no basis to further hold the members of the staff to be "directly" responsible for the closure of the school. It is obvious that lack of these material facilities has directly resulted in falling of requisite standards for which the Management alone was responsible. In terms of Rule 25A(2) of the Rules of 1981, the petitioners cannot be held to be directly responsible for such de-recognition. In our view, the petitioners are entitled to fall back on the provisions of Rule 25A(2) of the Rules of 1981 as "they are not directly responsible for such de-recognition". It is therefore held that the impugned order dated 17.05.2006 to the extent it holds the petitioners directly responsible for de-recognition is without any basis and contrary to the material on record. The finding recorded that the Management was directly WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 15/17 responsible for closure of the school leading to its de-recognition is however upheld.
11. Having found that the petitioners were not directly responsible for the de-recognition of the school under Rule 25A(2) of the Rules of 1981, the aspect of relief to which they ought to be held entitled is required to be considered. It was contended that the petitioners were entitled to be placed in the waiting list maintained by the Deputy Director of Education for being recommended to be absorbed in some other school. If the names of the petitioners would have been included in the waiting list, their services could have been absorbed in some aided school. Though the petitioners were desirous of being placed on the waiting list and have been prosecuting the present proceedings since then, they have been kept out of employment. In the context of the prayer for grant of back-wages, the observations in paragraph 13 of the recent decision in Gowramma C. (supra) are relevant. It has been observed as under:
"13. The most important question is whether the employee is at fault in any manner. If the employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the end of the day would be unfair to the employee. In such circumstances, no doubt, the question relating to alternative employment that the employee may have resorted to, becomes relevant. There is also the aspect of discretion which is exercised by the Court keeping in view the facts of each case."..
Since we have held that the petitioners were not responsible for the de- recognition of the school, there is no reason whatsoever to deprive them of the WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 16/17 relief of back-wages. In the facts of the case wherein the order of de-recognition was initially passed on 18.05.1996 which was thereafter set aside followed by subsequent order dated 17.05.2006, the grant of 25% back-wages to the petitioners would serve the interest of justice.
12. Coming to the aspect of grant of pensionary benefits, we find that during the pendency of the present proceedings the petitioners have superannuated and the relief of their names being taken in the waiting list under Rule 25A(2) of the Rules of 1981 cannot now be granted. The petitioners having rendered service for substantial period prior to 18.05.1996 would be entitled to receive pensionary benefits by treating their services as having been rendered till their respective dates of superannuation.
13. For aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed:
(i) The impugned order dated 17.05.2006 to the extent it holds the petitioners responsible for de-recognition of the school at Belora is set aside. It is held that in terms of Rule 25A(2) of the Rules of 1981 the petitioners are not directly responsible for such de-recognition.
(ii) As a consequence, the names of the petitioners were liable to be taken on the waiting list by the Deputy Director of Education under Rule 25A(2) of the Rules of 1981. Since the petitioners have crossed the age of superannuation, it is held that they would be entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with the Rules of 1981.
WP-5010-07 c WP-4857-07 c WP-5011-07(J).odt 17/17
(iii) The Education Officer (Secondary) shall verify the relevant documents including the date of appointment of each petitioner to enable them to receive 25% back-wages from 19.05.1996 till their respective dates of superannuation as well as pensionary benefits. This exercise be conducted within a period of two months from the date of receiving copy of this judgment.
14. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar..
Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/11/2023 19:27:07