Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties finally, by consent.

2. The petitioner No.1 is the society and petitioner No.2 is the school run under the management of petitioner No.1. They are challenging the Government Resolution dated 11 th December 2020 whereby respondent No.1 fixed the staffing pattern of Class-IV employees under secondary and higher secondary schools run under the State of Maharashtra. As per the said wp-12492.21 Government Resolution dated 11 th December 2020 contractual employees are to be appointed to perform the work of Class-IV employees in place of regular appointed Class-IV employees and respondent No.1 will grant peon allowance to the schools for such contractually appointed employees. The said Government Resolution abolishes the sanctioned and regular posts of Class-IV employees, but while making a provision for contractual employees, providing for a meager peon allowance and changing the ratio of number of students to the number of Class-IV employees is said to be detrimental to the interest of the schools and students. Further, it is also contrary to the provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 as the regular employee would get salary as per the pay-scale and the contractual employee doing the equal work will not get equal pay and therefore, it is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also said that the said Government Resolution is contrary to the provisions under the Secondary School Code, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Act, 1977 (for short "MEPS Act") and Rules framed thereunder of 1981 as well as contrary to Maharashtra Primary Education Act, 1949. The said Government Resolution is totally a departure from the earlier staffing pattern of Class-IV employees provided under the wp-12492.21 previous Government Resolutions which have proved to the test of time till today. The petitioners are praying that the earlier Government Resolution dated 28th June 1994 under which, on the basis of Chiplunkar Committee, regular pay scales are provided under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (for short "MEPS Rules") with amendments from time to time be implemented as before. The petitioners have quoted the data of the students from their school from the academic year 2017-2018 on-wards and submits that in all eight posts of non-teaching employees were sanctioned to petitioner No.2 school.

" By now, it is well settled that the Secondary School Code has a statutory force and is not merely an administrative instruction. The Secondary School Code will have its operation limited to the secondary and higher secondary schools and may not apply to the primary schools."

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the Secondary School Code prescribes the staffing pattern. So far as the staffing pattern of Class-IV employees is concerned, Learned Advocate refers to the provisions of Rule 57.7 of the Secondary School Code, which reads thus:-

10. Learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the staffing pattern is always settled by the Government since the opening of the school. When a school is allowed to be opened then the staffing pattern is settled and allotted to the said school under which different posts are prescribed. The staffing pattern is controlled by MEPS Act and Secondary School Code, respectively and along with the MEPS Act, the MEPS Rules would govern the field. Even when the staffing pattern was initially declared as per the MEPS Act, MEPS Rules and Secondary School Code, thereafter also the change as per the Chiplunkar Committee regarding creation of additional posts was effected by way of Government Resolution dated 28 th June 1994. Therefore, it will not lie in the mouth of the petitioners that by Government Resolutions the Government cannot make changes in the staffing pattern. The petitioners cannot say that when the staff is increased or additional posts are created then it cannot be taken away by the Government by way of Government Resolution. Only favourable things cannot be so projected. After the Government Resolution dated 28 th June 1994 was issued by wp-12492.21 which in view of Chiplunkar Committee report additional posts were created, thereafter also Government Resolution dated 25 th November 2005 was issued, by which changes were suggested by the committee which was then freshly appointed. There was no challenge to any of the stipulations in the said Government Resolution. All the posts which were differently named in Schedule "C" of the MEPS Rules were brought under one nomenclature i.e. "Class-IV employees". However, it appears from further Government Resolution dated 23 rd October 2013 that many institutions had raised objection with the Government and therefore the Government could not implement the Government Resolution dated 25 th November 2005. So also it gave rise to some litigation and therefore once again high level committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary to the State. In view of the report of the said committee, post-wise number was fixed / posts were sanctioned. By Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015, the staffing pattern as decided in Government Resolution dated 23 rd October 2013 was accepted as it is and appointment to the further post was prohibited. Thereafter by Government Resolution dated 28 th January 2019, improved staffing pattern for other non-teaching staff was sanctioned. But as regards Class-IV employees are wp-12492.21 concerned, it was stated that it would be considered separately and was not fixed and thereafter the impugned Government Resolution was passed on 11 th December 2020. Learned AGP pointed out Clause No.4 from the said Government Resolution dated 11th December 2020, which runs thus:-

13. As the facts have already been narrated, the same need not be reproduced once again. The challenge is to the Government Resolution dated 11th December 2020, which is of course the outcome of the power within the State Government to wp-12492.21 make rules in respect of staffing pattern. Certainly, in view of the observations in Writ Petition No. 5959 of 2015 on 4 th May 2018 (Sanskar Prabodhini Secondary School, Through its Head Mistress vs. the State of Maharashtra and others) (supra), the Secondary School Code has a statutory force. However, it can be seen that the main object is to have uniformity in the schools, especially the secondary school or higher secondary school or higher secondary multipurpose school or vocational high school, which is described in the definition of "school" in Chapter-I of the Secondary School Code. Chapter-II of the Secondary School Code deals with the recommendation, organization and management of the schools including conditions, grant, refusal and withdrawal of recognition, admissions, staffing pattern etc. But when Chapter-III of Secondary School Code lays down provisions for conditions of service of staff, records, register and inspection, then the number of clerical staff admissible to a school has been prescribed in Clause 57.5. Clause 57.7 deals with lower grade staff and all this is by virtue of Government Resolution dated 2nd January 1975. Even in respect of laboratory assistant, the pattern is fixed as per Circular dated 21 st May 1981.